JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - CM No.14448-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CM No.14449-CII of 2012 The application is allowed and Annexures P-1 to P-4 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CR No.3354 of 2012 2. Defendants have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 23.03.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda thereby dismissing application Annexure P-1 moved by defendants/petitioners for recall of orders dated 05.08.2008 and 16.10.2008 (Annexures P-2 and P-3). 3. Respondents/plaintiffs have filed suit against defendants/petitioners for recovery of money of the goods purchased by defendants from the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs moved application for directing the defendants to produce certain documents. Learned trial Court vide order dated 05.08.2008 Annexure P-2 directed the defendants to produce the documents relied on by them failing which adverse inference shall be drawn against them and they shall have no right to produce the said documents in their evidence. The defendants failed to produce the said documents pursuant to order Annexure P-2 and consequently the trial Court vide order dated 16.10.2008 Annexure P-3 debarred the defendants from producing the said documents in evidence and also observed that inference in this regard shall be drawn at the time of final disposal of the suit. Defendants moved application Annexure P-1 dated 18.08.2011 for recall of aforesaid orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 alleging that the defendants learnt of the said orders when counsel for the plaintiffs raised objection to production of the said documents on 14.06.2011. Prior to it, the said orders were not brought to the notice of the defendants by their counsel. 4. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 dismissed the application Annexure P-1 moved by the defendants who have, therefore, filed this revision petition to challenge the said order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 6. Counsel for the petitioners contended that even if a party fails to produce documents referred to in the pleadings, the party may be permitted to produce the same by way of additional evidence on payment of costs. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in case of Devinder Singh & others versus Harbhajan Singh & others, 2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1341 7. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in case of Devinder Singh & others versus Harbhajan Singh & others, 2012(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1341 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but he same is completely misconceived and has no bearing on the issue to be determined in the revision petition. In the instant case, it is not question of additional evidence. On the other hand, the defendants relied on certain documents. The plaintiffs sought production of the said documents for inspection and perusal. The trial Court vide Annexure P-2 directed the defendants to produce the documents and also cautioned the defendants that if they would not produce the documents, adverse inference would be drawn against them and they also would not have right to produce the documents in their evidence. In spite of this caution and warning in order Annexure P-2, defendants failed to produce the said documents and consequently the trial Court vide order Annexure P-3 ordered that the defendants are debarred from producing the said documents and inference would also be drawn at the time of disposal of the suit. The defendants did not challenge orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 by way of revision petition or by filing any application for review or recall of the said orders till filing of the application Annexure P-1 on 18.08.2011 i.e. after three years of the passing of the orders Annexure P-2 and P-3. There is no justification for moving application Annexure P-1 for recalling Annexures P-2 and P-3 at such late stage. The said application was moved after long delay of three years and is liable to dismissal on this ground alone. 8. Even on merits, the application (Annexure P-1) can not be accepted. There is no infirmity in orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 so as to recall the same. The said orders were rightly passed. The defendants had relied on certain documents and, therefore, they were bound to produce the same when summoned by the plaintiffs. However, the defendants failed to produce the same and, therefore, the defendants cannot produce the said documents in evidence now and necessary inference also has to be drawn against the defendants. Orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 are fully justified and, therefore, impugned order Annexure P-4 declining to recall orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 is also fully justified. However, the defendants failed to produce the same and, therefore, the defendants cannot produce the said documents in evidence now and necessary inference also has to be drawn against the defendants. Orders Annexure P-2 and P-3 are fully justified and, therefore, impugned order Annexure P-4 declining to recall orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 is also fully justified. There is no infirmity, much less illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error either in orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 or in impugned order Annexure P-4 so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Defendants tried to play hide and seek not only with the plaintiffs but also with the Court. They are not entitled to any relief on this ground also. Besides it, even on merits, defendants have no case. 9. The revision petition is completely meritless and frivolous and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------