Civil Revision No. 98 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 98 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.2.2009 Baldev Singh ..... Petitioner vs Som Nath ..... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders dated 13.10.2008 and 2.12.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division),Dhuri, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence in the form of statements of Som Nath respondent-plaintiff and Sunil Kumar, as was recorded in the criminal case, has been rejected. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs. 9,56,250/- on the basis of pronote executed by the petitioner-defendant. During the trial, the respondent-plaintiff produced his evidence and also got recorded his statement as well as the witness produced by him. They were cross-examined at length by the petitioner- defendant. At the fag end of the trial, application was moved for producing the statements of the respondent and another witness as was recorded in a criminal case, the same having been rejected, the petitioner-defendant is before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements recorded in criminal case are material for the purpose of decision of the present case as the FIR No. 277 dated 16.10.2003, under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC at Police Station, Dhuri, was also registered against the petitioner and his brothers in which certain facts were stated regarding the pronote in question, which will have bearing in the present case, accordingly the statements be permitted to be produced on record in additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 98 of 2009 (2) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once the respondent-plaintiff as well as the witness produced by him have been cross-examined by the petitioner at considerable length during the course of trial, there is no relevance with their statements recorded during the process of trial of a criminal case. The case is at the fag end and fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no case is made out for permission to lead additional evidence. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 2.2.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge