JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Heard. Challenge herein is to an order dated 9.12.2015 Annexure P-3 (colly) allowing thereby the respondent No. 1-plaintiff to produce in evidence the certified copy of registered sale deed and also spot inspection report allegedly prepared by one Shri R.P. Swami after conducting spot inspection on 17.4.2015. Respondent No. 1-plaintiff has also been permitted to examine said Shri R.P. Swami as witness in the suit. 2. The suit after the parties on both sides closed their evidence in affirmative was at the stage of recording the plaintiff's evidence in rebuttal. Instead of producing the evidence in rebuttal she has filed an application under Section 151 CPC with a prayer to allow her to lead additional evidence as aforesaid. 3. Application though was resisted and contested by the petitioner-defendant. However, the trial Court while arriving at a conclusion that the opportunity to produce the document and examine Shri R.K. Swami as witness is required to be given to respondent No. 1-plaintiff has allowed the application. 4. If not shocking, it is surprising enough that the additional evidence has been allowed to be produced vide order passed in an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure that too at a stage when the parties on both sides had already closed the evidence in affirmative. Interestingly enough the spot inspection report based upon the so called report of Shri R.P. Swami expert witness is dated 17.4.2015 viz after 12.3.2015 on which day the respondent No. 1-plaintiff had failed to produce the rebuttal evidence and had sought last opportunity for the purpose. Allowing to produce the spot inspection report in evidence and also the recording of statement of its author Shri R.K. Swami at such a stage when the parties have already closed the evidence is nothing but amount to fill-up the lacuna left in the case of respondent No. 1-plaintiff. As a matter of fact the report which is obtained after the parties had already adduced the evidence should have not been allowed to be produced in the evidence nor its author Shri R.K. Swami examined as witness. Otherwise also, if there exist a passage over the land in dispute, the reference thereto must be in the registered sale deed. As a matter of fact the report which is obtained after the parties had already adduced the evidence should have not been allowed to be produced in the evidence nor its author Shri R.K. Swami examined as witness. Otherwise also, if there exist a passage over the land in dispute, the reference thereto must be in the registered sale deed. Therefore, respondent No.1-plaintiff at the most could have been permitted to produce in evidence the certified copy of the registered sale deed which otherwise is per se admissible in evidence and as such learned Counsel representing her in his own statement can tender the same in evidence. 5. The trial Court, therefore, has not only erred legally but factually also in allowing the respondent No.1-pliantiff to produce in evidence the spot inspection report and also the permission to examine Shri R.K. Swami in evidence. That part of the impugned order being illegal and unsustainable is hereby quashed and set aside. The statement of Shri R.K. Swami and the spot inspection report if already recorded/produced in evidence shall not form the part of the evidence. Learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 1-plaintiff however is at liberty to tender in his own statement the certified copy of the sale deed, if so advised and the production whereof in evidence shall not be objected to on behalf of petitioner-defendant also as has said by learned Counsel representing him at the Bar. 6. This petition is, therefore, partly allowed and stands accordingly disposed of. Pending application (s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. 7. Authenticated copy, to learned trial Court for record and compliance.