JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.:- C.M. No. 15874-CII of 2012 Civil Misc. application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. For the reasons stated in the application, name of respondent no.7 is ordered to be struck off from the array of parties. Office to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. CR No. 8103 of 2011 Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal, whereby application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence by way of original registered lease deed and General Power of Attorney dated 25.02.1989, certified copies of which are already exhibited on record, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against Om Parkash, predecessor-in-interest of respondents on the basis of agreement to sell dated 25.09.1989. It is alleged in the plaint that a lease deed dated 24.09.1989 for 90 years was also executed by the defendants in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff. In addition to that General Power of Attorney was also executed on 25.09.1989. 3. While leading the petitioner-plaintiff’s evidence, the documents i.e. the lease deed dated 24.09.1989 and the power of attorney dated 25.09.1989 were not traceable, however, certified copies of the same were brought before the learned trial Court in evidence of the plaintiff and the same were exhibited on record. However, during the pendency of the civil suit, those original documents have been found and the same were sought to be placed on record in order to avoid technical objections. For that purpose, an application for leading additional evidence by way of these two documents was filed. The same has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that lease deed as well as the general power of attorney were pleaded in the plaint. Even the certified copies of the same have been exhibited on record as the original of those documents were not traceable at that point of time. Now, the original has been traced out and the civil suit is still pending. In order to avoid technical objections, the application for leading additional evidence was filed, which has been illegally and arbitrarily dismissed. 6. Now, the original has been traced out and the civil suit is still pending. In order to avoid technical objections, the application for leading additional evidence was filed, which has been illegally and arbitrarily dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that in view of the latest amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no provision for leading additional evidence. Otherwise also, it was for the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence and should have moved an application for secondary evidence when the certified copies of those documents were brought on record in plaintiff’s evidence. 7. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Although there is no provision for leading additional evidence, but in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3353, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that notwithstanding the deletion of Rule 17-A of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court has inherent power to permit parties to lead additional evidence on such terms as may appear to be just in the facts and circumstances of a given case. Admittedly, the certified copies of aforesaid two documents are already on record and stand exhibited as at that point of time originals of those documents were not traceable, so the petitioner was not in a position to place on record the original documents. The documents have already been pleaded in the pleadings by the petitioner-plaintiff and since the originals have been traced out, this Court has no hesitation to hold that once the certified copies of the originals have been exhibited on record without any objection, there should be no objection to the placing on record the originals of the same which have subsequently been traced out. The petitioner – plaintiff is entitled to bring on record the original lease deed as well as general power of attorney dated 25.02.1989. This is necessary in the interest of justice. The respondents-defendants can be compensated in terms of costs. 9. The petitioner – plaintiff is entitled to bring on record the original lease deed as well as general power of attorney dated 25.02.1989. This is necessary in the interest of justice. The respondents-defendants can be compensated in terms of costs. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner/plaintiff is allowed to bring on record the originals of the documents in question, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondents-defendants. 10. In view of the above, impugned order dated 06.12.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Palwal is set aside and the application for bringing on record the originals of the documents in issue is allowed subject to costs as aforesaid. Present revision petition is allowed in the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------