Civil Revision No. 4467 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4467 of 2008 Date of decision: 22.10.2009 Pala Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kewal Krishan ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Talwandi Sabo, vide which the application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, stands declined. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,10,000/- (Rupees three lac ten thousand only) i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lac fifty thousand only) principal and Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) interest on the basis of pronote and receipt said to have been executed by the defendant/petitioner. The execution of pronote and receipt was denied, and a specific plea was taken by the defendant/petitioner in the written statement, that plaintiff/respondent is running a commission agency, and the petitioner is selling his agricultural produce, through said agency. The plaintiff/respondent denied the fact of running of Civil Revision No. 4467 of 2008 -2- commission agency. The petitioner summoned official witness from the market committee. The official witness supported the version of the petitioner in examination-in-chief, but in cross examination he supported the stand of the plaintiff/respondent by stating, that Kewal Krishan was not doing the work of commission agent. The petitioner moved application for leading additional evidence to produce on record the licence in the name of Kewal Krishan, showing that he was, in fact, running a commission agency as proprietor. The learned trial Court rejected the application merely on the ground that the official of the market committee was the witness summoned by the defendant/petitioner. The learned Court felt that no ground for additional evidence was made out, to rebut his evidence. On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The fact whether the plaintiff/respondent is running a commission agency and whether the defendant/petitioner had dealings with him, are the material questions which need determination. The evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was, therefore, necessary for the Court to arrive at just and proper decision, qua the controversy. For the reasons stated, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the defendant/petitioner for leading additional evidence stands allowed. The petitioner shall be granted only one opportunity to lead evidence. If the assistance of the Court is required to summon the official witness, the same be provided. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 22, 2009 R.S.