M.L. Singhal, J.

1. This is a civil revision filed by the Plaintiffs against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Senior division). Gurgaon, whereby he had declined the applications dated 16.2.l999 and 23.2.1999 moved by them for leading additional evidence.

2. Through application dated 16.2.1999 moved by them for additional evidence, they wanted to produce some documents as detailed in the application. It was alleged by them that at the time when they were leading evidence in affirmative, they could not lay their hands on those documents despite the exercise of due diligence. Evidence sought to be produced are the copies of judicial records which came to their knowledge at the time when files were inspected. Some of the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are certified copies of the revenue record and their production in evidence is necessary.

3. In the other application for additional evidence dated 23.2.1999 it was alleged that some documents sought to be produced in additional evidence are already on the file which could not be produced and exhibited at the time when they were leading evidence in the affirmative and some of the documents came into existence subsequent to the date of closure of their evidence.

4. Both these applications were contested by Defendants No. 1, 4 to 7 and 12 to 15. It was urged that evidence of the Plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court, as such, these applications are not maintainable. It was also urged that the proposed evidence does not relate to the property in dispute and is not relevant. Vide Order dated 1.4.1999, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, declined both these applications.

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that they should have been allowed to lead additional evidence mentioned by them in their applications dated 16.2.1999 and 23.2.1999 for additional evidence as the evidence sought to be produced by them was the certified copies of the judicial record, revenue record and some of the documents which they sought to produce in additional evidence, were already on the file. It was submitted that the evidence sought to be produced by them was authentic and regarding their authenticity, not even a little finger could be raised. It was submitted that when they were leading their evidence in affirmative, some of the documents which they wanted to produce by way of additional evidence, were not traceable and despite the exercise of due diligence, they could not lay their hands at those documents. Some are copies of judicial records and documents obtained from previous civil suits which came to their knowledge at the time when the said files were inspected. Some documents are certified copies of revenue record and Shajra Khasra Paimaish Abadi. It was submitted that the documents are very material for the substantiation of their case. Certified copies of judicial records and revenue record are per-se admissible into evidence. Through application dated 16.2.1999, they wanted to produce certified copies of the writing which was produced by Shri Moti Lal Jian Defendant in the previous civil suit Chand Tori v. Ramanand, No. 46, decided on 24.3.1964 and original document was marked C certified copy of shajra paimaish abadi of village Garhi Harsaru prepared in the 1877, certified copy of khasra paimaish abadi of village Garhi Harsaru relating to Ahata No. 32 and 33, certified copy of khasra paimaish abadi of 1877 relating to Ahata No. 41 and 42, certified copy of auction issued by Sub Judge I Vth Class, Gurgaon, dated 31st January, 1938 in Civil Suit titled, Firm Rud Mal Hardev Sahai v. Ghaman son of Gopal It was submitted that through application dated 16.2.1999, they wanted to produce only the certified copies of judicial record and revenue record which is ancient record. It was submitted that these documents are very relevant and go to the very root of the controversy between the parties. It was submitted that Plaintiffs should have been allowed to produce and prove documents serialled at No. (1) to (xxi) and to examine the witnesses, such as Shri S.P. Jain, Shri Gobind Parshad Advocate. Documents serialled at No. 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 are documents which carry the signatures of Shri Anoop Chand, the natural father of Shri Khazanchi Mal whose signatures will be proved by Shri S.P. Jain. The document serialled at No. 17 which is the certified copy of the plaint which carries the signatures of Shri Deen Dayal, advocate, whose son Shri Gobind Parshad, Advocate is practising in Gurgaon and will prove the signatures of his father and will prove the said document.

7. It was submitted that through application dated 23.2.1999, they wanted to produce and prove original receipt dated 13.5.1998 issued by Shri Moti Lal Jain to Shri Anand Swarup Jain in lieu of the rent received by him for the period May, 1998 to September, l998, original receipt dated 25.7.1997 issued by Shri Moti Lal Jain to Shri Anand Swarup Jain in token of having received the rent from November, 1996 to April, 1997 and certified copy of khasra girdwari relating to khasra No. 982 of Hidyatpur Chhawni for the year 1914 and usk-shajra and khasra paimaish abadi. It was submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners that most of the record they wanted to produce was per-se admissible into evidence, about authenticity of which not even a flicker of doubt could be raised. It was submitted that the Plaintiffs were not to blame if the evidence sought to be produced by them came to their knowledge after they had finished their evidence in affirmative. It was held in Harjit Kaur v. Sukhvinder Singh1, 1993 CCC 623 (P & H), that where Plaintiff in his application for additional evidence had pleaded that after the closure of evidence by the Defendant, he became aware that executant of agreement to sell had executed a mortgage deed in favour of bank and his signatures should be allowed to be compared with the disputed signatures, allowing additional evidence by the trial Court was justified. In Ved Parkash v. Gapal Bansal,2 (1997) 91 PLR 408, it was held that even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the affidavit dated 19.5.88 was in possession of the Plaintiff and he was to prove this affidavit while leading evidence in affirmative, still nothing debars the courts from taking on record such evidence which in its opinion can help it in the proper adjudication of the controversy. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, thus, submitted that additional evidence should have been allowed to be produced by them, even after they had closed their evidence in affirmative when additional evidence sought to be produced was not in their knowledge when they were leading additional evidence and further the additional evidence sought to be produced was certified copies of the judicial record, revenue record etc.. about the authenticity of which there could not be even a flicker of doubt. It was also submitted that courts of law are meant to do justice between the parties. Rules of procedure are meant to enable courts to do justice. Justice should not be sacrificed at the technicalities of procedure.

8. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Petitioners had been refused the permission to lead additional evidence justifiably because their evidence was closed by order of the Court and against the order closing their evidence they did not file any revision and if they are allowed to lead additional evidence that would be circumventing the order closing their evidence. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Khuda Bux v. Nafis Ahmad (1998) 108 PLR 561, where it was held that where documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence were within the knowledge of the applicant and the applicant did not exercise due diligence, application for additional evidence should be refused. In Surf an Singh v. Paras Ram and others4, (1994)108 P.L.R. 503, it was held that unless the party satisfies the court that after due diligence had been exercised documents could not be produced earlier, court cannot permit the party to lead such documentary evidence subsequently which was already in existence and known to the parties concerned. Power of court in allowing additional evidence is circumscribed to be exercised within the four corners of statute. Party must establish that if diligence had been exercised, documents could not have been produced. It would bear repetition that rules of procedure are meant to advance justice and not to impede justice. Petitioners wanted to produce documentary evidence regrading the authenticity of which not even the slightest doubt could be raised. In Ram Singh v. Pirthi and others5, 1996 PLJ 605, it was held that application for additional evidence should not be rejected on a blanket rule that since this evidence was available to the Plaintiff or it was within his knowledge, he should not be allowed to adduce such evidence at the fag end of the trial. No party can be denied the right to examine any witness on the mere ground that the evidence that party could have adduced at that time when he was adducing affirmative evidence or when he had right to adduce rebuttal evidence, did not do it. Evidence essential to determine real controversy in suit must be allowed to be produced. The principles of procedural law are hand made, to justice. Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that if this prayer of the Petitioners is allowed that would amount to going behind the order of the court ordering the closure of their evidence. Suffice it to say in their affirmative evidence, the Plaintiffs could not be able to produce this evidence when they were not aware of this evidence at that time, they became aware of this evidence and also some of the documents came into existence subsequent to when they had led their evidence.

9. Courts have to do substantial justice in the cases that come up before them. They are required to eschew strict rules of procedure it they feel that following the strict rules of procedure in justice, will be occasioned.

10. For the reasons given above, this revision is allowed.

11. Plaintiffs are allowed to lead additional evidence which they seek to lead through the applications made by them dated 16.2.1999 and 23.21999. They shall pay Rs. 2000/- (rupees two thousand only) as costs to the Respondents.