JUDGMENT Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J.:- Petitioner Rambhateri has filed the present civil revision petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated20.11.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (SeniorDivision), Kanina, whereby the application filed by respondent No.1-plaintiffseeking permission to lead additional evidence has been allowed at a muchbelated stage. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed a suit fordeclaration to the effect that the plaintiff along with proforma defendant in thesuit are owners in possession of the suit land, as detailed in the plaint andtherefore, they being coparceners are entitled to get their names entered in therevenue record as per their share. It has further been prayed that the deedNo.2228 dated 09.03.2006 executed on behalf of Gulzari Lal in favour of thepetitioner-defendant, on the basis of which mutation No.3217 has beenregistered in favour of the petitioner, is against law and is based onmisrepresentation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has argued that theimpugned order dated 20.11.2017 passed by learned civil Court on theapplication filed by the respondent-plaintiff under Section 151 CPC allowingthe plaintiff to lead additional evidence is not sustainable in the eyes of law.No justified reason has been furnished by the plaintiff to lead additionalevidence. The plaintiff has led entire evidence after availing numerousopportunities and thereafter, the evidence of plaintiff was closed on the basisof statement of the counsel for the plaintiff after tendering documents Ex.P1to Ex.P5. Even the petitioner-defendant has also concluded her evidence andthe same was closed. Thereafter, the case was fixed for arguments, but therespondent No.1-plaintiff, in order to delay the matter, had filed anapplication under Order XVIII Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC with theaverments that some revenue record of consolidation and Jamabandi was leftto be produced on record and the same was relevant for just decision of thecase. Therefore, the plaintiff had prayed for production of those documents byway of additional evidence. 4. In her reply to that application, the petitioner-defendant hadspecifically pleaded that the application submitted by the plaintiff is nothingbut an attempt to delay the proceedings in the suit and the documents soughtto be produced as additional evidence cannot be allowed to be taken inevidence. Moreover, the respondent-plaintiff had already closed his evidenceby making a statement and, therefore, the question of allowing the applicationfor leading additional evidence does not arise. The said application wasallowed by learned civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. 5. Moreover, the respondent-plaintiff had already closed his evidenceby making a statement and, therefore, the question of allowing the applicationfor leading additional evidence does not arise. The said application wasallowed by learned civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. 5. He has further argued that when the case was again fixed forarguments, the respondent No.1-plaintiff in order to delay the matter furtherand even without there being any specific provision of law, has movedanother application dated 13.07.2017 under Section 151 CPC to leadadditional evidence. In her application, the plaintiff has prayed that mutationof inheritance qua Leela Ram son of Harsahai and Gulzari Lal son of LeelaRam were left to be produced on record. Since there are other litigationspending between the parties, the said documents were left out in the brief ofthe counsel and could not be produced on record. 6. He has further argued that the petitioner-defendant has refutedthe very averments made in the application dated 13.07.2017 moved byrespondent No.1-plaintiff. The second application cannot be entertained moreparticularly when the respondent-plaintiff has earlier also moved anapplication under Order XVIII Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC, whichwas allowed by learned civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. He hasargued that the respondent No.1-plaintiff is unnecessarily delaying theproceedings and the second application dated 13.07.2017 was liable to berejected. There is no provision for moving second application for productionof additional evidence, but still, learned civil Court has allowed the saidapplication vide impugned order dated 20.11.2017 and permitted therespondent No.1-plaintiff to produce the additional evidence. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The primary argument, as raised by learned counsel for thepetitioner is that the evidence of the parties to the suit has already been closedand it is at a belated stage, the application seeking production of additionalevidence has been filed with the plea that the documents sought to be placedby way of additional evidence remained in another envelope and suchdocuments are necessary to be produced for proper adjudication of the case. 9. No doubt, earlier also the respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed anapplication under Order XVIII Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC that shewanted to produce revenue record on the case file which was necessary forproper adjudication of the case and the said application dated 17.11.2016 wasallowed by the civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. 9. No doubt, earlier also the respondent No.1-plaintiff had filed anapplication under Order XVIII Rule 17-A read with Section 151 CPC that shewanted to produce revenue record on the case file which was necessary forproper adjudication of the case and the said application dated 17.11.2016 wasallowed by the civil Court vide order dated 27.03.2017. However, through asubsequent application filed under Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff has soughtto produce the mutation of inheritance of Leela Ram and Gulzari Lal. Sincethe said record was originally in Urdu language, the plaintiff has got the sametranslated in Hindi language and accordingly, sought the same to be producedby way of additional evidence. 10. Thus, in this manner, there is no illegality in the impugned orderdated 20.11.2017 passed by learned civil Court, wherein it has been observedthat the translated record was not present with the plaintiff before filing of theapplication and the same was translated after filing the application. Therefore,in order to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of process of law,learned civil Court has rightly allowed the application while exercising powerunder Section 151 CPC permitting the respondent No.1-plaintiff to leadadditional evidence. Learned civil Court has also imposed cost upon theplaintiff. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2017 (AnnexureP-8) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanina isaffirmed and the instant civil revision petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. 12. It is, however, made clear that the observations madehereinabove shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the suit.