C. R. No. 4240 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4240 of 2005 Date of Decision : May 12, 2009 Dr. Satish Chadha .... Petitioner Vs. M/s Srini Biological Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Awasthi, Advocate for the respondents. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by plaintiff assailing order dated 11.05.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. Vide order dated 20.07.2004, defendants/respondents were allowed to prove in evidence General Power of Attorney and resolution, which were already on the court file. The said order was passed on defendants' application because earlier defendants had closed their evidence. The plaintiff thereafter moved an application that the defendants should not be permitted to lead any oral evidence, nor permitted to produce any fresh document. The said application has been dismissed vide C. R. No. 4240 of 2005 2 impugned order dated 11.05.2005. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As regards objection of plaintiff-petitioner that the defendants should not be permitted to lead oral evidence, the same cannot be accepted because vide order dated 20.07.2004 as reproduced in the revision petition itself, the defendants were permitted to prove the aforesaid documents. It was in fact the case of the petitioner-plaintiff also that the aforesaid documents are not per se admissible in evidence. Consequently, oral evidence to prove the said documents can be adduced by the defendants pursuant to order dated 20.07.2004. However, oral evidence shall be restricted to proof of the said documents only. The second objection of the plaintiff is that the defendants instead of proving the documents, which were already on the court file, want to produce and prove some different document. In reply to this objection, learned counsel for the respondents states that only the aforesaid two documents, which were already on the court file, have been proved by defendants as Ex.DW-3/A and Ex.DW-3/B. In view of aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents, nothing survives in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed. However, if the documents proved by the defendants are different from the documents, which were already on the file, then the documents proved by the defendants shall not be taken into consideration by the trial court. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 28.05.2009. May 12, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE