C. R. No. 2275 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2275 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 05, 2010 Naresh .... Petitioner Vs. Brij Bhushan .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. U. K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by Naresh – legal representative of Birkha (original plaintiff – since deceased), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 17.03.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind, thereby dismissing petitioner's application for additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Defendant is ex-parte in the trial court. The petitioner led his ex-parte evidence. While the petitioner was leading his ex-parte evidence, he moved application for secondary evidence of agreement dated 08.07.1970 to be proved by entry in register of deed writer and by sale deed no.644 dated 26.07.1971, making reference to the said agreement. The said application was, however, disallowed by the trial court vide order dated 20.02.2010, which has attained finality and has not been challenged. After the petitioner closed his ex-parte evidence, he moved application for C. R. No. 2275 of 2010 2 additional evidence to prove various documents as detailed in paragraph 2 of the application and also to examine two more witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be allowed only one more opportunity to lead his evidence at own responsibility, on payment of cost. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner deserves to be allowed because defendant- respondent is already ex-parte in the trial court. The proposed evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the suit. However, two documents sought to be produced in additional evidence cannot be allowed. The said documents are photostat copy of sale deed no.644 dated 26.07.1971 and photostat copy of register of document writer because secondary evidence by way of said documents to prove document dated 08.07.1970 had already been disallowed by the trial court vide order dated 20.02.2010, which has not been challenged by the petitioner. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to the defendant-respondent because defendant is ex-parte in the trial court. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and the trial court is directed to grant only one opportunity to the petitioner to lead proposed additional evidence (except aforesaid two documents) at own responsibility, subject to deposit of Rs.5,000/- as cost precedent with District Legal Services Authority, Jind. The petitioner may seek assistance of the Court for summoning evidence, but not more than one opportunity only shall be granted to the petitioner to lead his proposed additional evidence, except aforesaid two documents, even on the ground of non- service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness in spite of service, or on any other ground whatsoever. April 05, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE