JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, plaintiffs have assailed order dated 27.02.2012 passed by the trial court thereby dismissing plaintiffs’ application for additional evidence. 2. Plaintiffs by way of additional evidence want to examine concerned Clerk and Draftsman, both officials of Municipal Council, Rampura Phul with record of the Municipal Council. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contended that both grounds recorded by the trial court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ application for additional evidence are erroneous and illegal. It was pointed out that trial court has observed that plaintiffs were granted 21 opportunities for their evidence whereas in fact they were granted only 8 opportunities for their evidence whereas the remaining dates of hearing were fixed for arguments on stay application. It is also submitted that the trial court has observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, ‘CPC’) for allowing additional evidence, although additional evidence may be allowed by court in appropriate case in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC. Both these contentions are not countered by counsel for contesting respondent No.1. However, counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the plaintiffs had themselves closed their evidence after availing 8 opportunities for their evidence and the proposed additional evidence was in their knowledge and, therefore, there is no ground for permitting the same. 5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention. The plaintiffs by way of additional evidence want to examine officials of Municipal Council with reference to record of the Municipal Council. The proposed additional evidence is not likely to be fabricated. Contesting respondent No.1/defendant No.1 would also get opportunity to rebut the said additional evidence. In these circumstances, in my opinion, ends of justice would be met if plaintiffs are permitted to adduce the proposed additional evidence on payment of costs so as to compensate defendant No.1. 6. For the reasons, I find that impugned order of the trial court is erroneous and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Application moved by the plaintiffs for additional evidence is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.3,500/- as costs precedent to defendant No.1.