CR No.6189 of 2007 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6189 of 2007 Decided on: 07.10.2009 **** Union of India . . . . Petitioner VS. M/s. Nova Security Service Pvt. Ltd. . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, whereby, the petitioner-plaintiff’s application to lead additional evidence comprising documents from the official record, has been dismissed. While the counsel for the petitioner asserts that the application has been dismissed by a one-line order, counsel for the respondent argues that a speaking order was also passed by the trial Court separately on 21.9.2007 itself. (2). Adverting to the uncontroverted facts, it may be noticed that the Union of India - the petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5,39,265.24 against the respondent-company, inter alia, averring that the respondent-company was awarded contract for supply of Security Guards/Supervisors but the contract was breached when theft was allegedly committed in the store on 25th March, 1996. The theft is said to CR No.6189 of 2007 - 2 - have been committed by or in connivance with the employees of the respondent-company. Various items were found missing during the random verification, the value of which has been assessed as per the details given in the recovery suit. (3). Pending suit, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application to bring on record the additional evidence primarily consisting of the copies of the official record duly maintained by it, especially the Verification Report and the Assessment of Loss suffered due to theft. (4). Though it appears that most of the above-stated documents were attached with the plaint but the same could not be exhibited at an appropriate stage and are now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence. (5). The real issue to be resolved by the trial Court is as to whether or not, the petitioner has suffered any loss due to the alleged theft of items by the employees of the respondent-Company and/or with their connivance who were engaged/hired as per the contract between the parties. (6). The said question can be effectively answered in a just and fair manner on the basis of documentary evidence comprising the correspondence or other official record maintained by the parties in the course of their official duties. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner are also likely to assist the trial Court in arriving at a definite conclusion. (7). It is true that there is some delay on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff in moving the application. But having regard to the impersonal character of the plaintiff-State and the fact that no serious prejudice would be caused to the respondent-defendant on that count, CR No.6189 of 2007 - 3 - who can be suitably compensated with costs also, I am inclined to accept the petitioner’s prayer. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 01.03.2007 passed by the ld. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh is set aside and the petitioner- plaintiff is permitted to bring the documents on record and also produce one official witness to get them exhibited, if so required, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondent-defendant. Since the petitioner has been permitted to lead his additional evidence, the subsequent order dated 21.09.2009 passed by the trial Court has become infructuous. (9). Disposed of. (10). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.10.2009 shonkar