G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court whereby the application of the defendant-petitioner for production of additional evidence was dismissed.
(2.) THE application which has given rise to this petition was filed by the defendant on the allegation that in some other matter Jaswant Kaur was examined by a doctor of the Psychiatric Department of Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and the said doctor made a report dated September 25, 1991 in respect of Jaswant Kaur wherein it was recorded that she was not of sound mind. On these premises, it was prayed that the defendant be permitted to produce the said doctor as a witness. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by observing that the mental condition of Jaswant Kaur was to be seen as on April 12, 1988 and this fact was very much in the knowledge of the defendant. He had averred in the written statement that she was not of sound mind at the time of execution of the registered sale deed and even otherwise the report of the doctor dated September 25, 1991 was not relevant to show the mental condition of Jaswant Kaur on April 12, 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter is still pending before the trial Court and, therefore, one opportunity deserves to be provided to the petitioner for producing the doctor and proving his report dated September 25, 1991 which evidence would go to show that Jaswant aur was of unsound mind at the relevant date. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and find that it is without merit. In the written statement a specific stand was taken by the respondent-petitioner that Jas-want Kaur was not of sound mind at the time of execution of the registered sale deed dated April 12. 1988. It is not shown that why a doctor could not be produced earlier. In the written statement, it is the further case of the petitioner that she became of sound mind 2-3 years before the filing of the written statement. Written statement was filed in the year 1989. It is not the case of the petitioner that she was got examined from any doctor prior to September, 1991. I have perused the report of the doctor referred to above with the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in my view the said report lends no assistance to the petitioner or the case purported to be put forward by the petitioner in the written statement. This report does not talk at all about the mental condition of Jaswant Kaur in the year 1988 or even in 1989. The sole question in this case is whether Jaswant Kaur was of sound mind in April, 1988 when she executed the registered sale deed. Thus, even if, the doctor is allowed to be produced as a witness and proves his report dated September 25, 1991, it will not help the petitioner at all, apart from the fact that nothing has been shown on the record as to why evidence about the mental condition of Jaswant Kaur could not be produced earlier when the defendant had an opportunity to do so. The facturn of Jaswant Kaur being of unsound mind was very much in the knowledge of the defendant and additional evidence can only be permitted which could not be produced earlier when the party had an occasion to produce the same, if the party seeking such permission satisfied the Court that evidence could not be produced earlier despite due diligence and that the evidence sought to be produced was not in the knowledge of such party when he had an opportunity to produce such evidence. Nothing of the type has either been alleged or shown to the satisfaction of the Court as already noticed. All the facts were in the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner and there was nothing to prevent him to produce the evidence on an earlier date. Thus, I am of the view that no case is made out for production of additional evidence under Order 18, Rule 17-A. In the circumstances, this revision petition fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Court shall now proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible and dispose of the suit according to law. .;