CR No. 3329 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3329 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.5.2011. Jarnail Singh .......Petitioner Vs. Gurjant Singh & others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. V.S.Haritwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed the suit for recovery of damages qua loss of motor cycle No. HR-01P/6648. Vide the impugned order dated 7.5.2011, the application filed by the petitioners for permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the recovery memo dated 9.9.2007 and mechanical report dated 26.9.2007 were very necessary for the just decision of the case but the counsel for the petitioners in the trial court had failed to produce the same on record. The petitioners could not be made to suffer for the mistake of their counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that issues CR No. 3329 of 2011 (O&M) -2- were framed by the trial court on 2.6.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners availed nine opportunities to conclude their evidence. Now the case is listed for rebuttal evidence of the petitioners. At this stage, the petitioners have moved an application for permission to lead additional evidence to prove on record the recovery memo dated 9.9.2007 and report of the mechanic dated 26.9.2007. The petitioners have already led in their evidence report prepared under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR No. 123 dated 9.9.2007. The recovery memo and the report of the mechanic were, however, not proved on record. The documents, now sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence, were in the knowledge of the petitioners but they had failed to produce the same on record. In these circumstances, the learned trial court had rightly dismissed the application for additional evidence. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE May 19, 2011 Gurpreet