C.R.No.4956 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4956 of 2009 Date of Decision : 01.09.2009 Mani Ram ...Petitioner Versus M/s subhash Chander Bansi Dhar ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application filed by the petitioner to produce the certified copies of the documents, photocopies of which were also on record as mark DH, DD, DG, was dismissed. Admittedly, the defendant-petitioner closed his evidence on 11.11.2008, whereas the application for additional evidence, so as to produce certified copies, was filed on 29.4.2009. In the application, the petitioner has not disclosed as to why the certified copies of the documents were not produced, when the defendant was leading his evidence. The suit for recovery of Rs.6,93,750/- was filed on 11.8.2005. It appears that the application for additional evidence now moved is to delay the final decision of the suit, without explaining the reasons as to C.R.No.4956 of 2009 2 why the certified copies were not produced, when the defendant was leading his evidence. Still further, the defendant wants to produce a copy of the complaint made by the son of the defendant to the Police Authorities and the orders passed thereon. The complaint to the Police Authorities is not a public document, which is not per se admissible in evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 01.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE