Civil Revision No. 6366 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6366 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 18th, 2011 Ajmer Singh Pannu .... Petitioner Versus Inderjit Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Gaurav Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Ajmer Singh Pannu, respondent No.1, for setting aside the order dated 29.9.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide which the application of the petitioner for permission to adduce additional evidence has been dismissed. Inderjit Kaur and her two sons had brought a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation on the death of Bir Singh. Ajmer Singh Pannu is arrayed as driver and owner of the offending car bearing registration No. HR-99-BT(T)-5869. After the trial, the case came Civil Revision No. 6366 of 2011 2 .. to the stage of arguments on 12.9.2011 when the petitioner filed an application for permission to adduce additional evidence in which he sought to examine himself as well as the investigating officer of the insurance company as witnesses. He has claimed that though his evidence has been closed by his counsel, yet on account of his suffering from malaria, he could not contact his counsel, who had closed the evidence. It is further alleged by him that on 1.8.2011, he was told by his counsel that driving licence in his possession is said to be fake. Therefore, in order to rebut the said evidence, he himself wants to appear in the witness box as a witness and wants to examine the investigating officer of the insurance company. The application has been opposed by the insurer. It is claimed that the petitioner has come with this application only when it has been proved that licence in his possession is fake. According to him, he wants to rebut the evidence led by the insurer which is not permissible under law. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal dismissed the application. Learned Tribunal has noticed the circumstances in which this application has been filed and has declined the prayer for the reason that the petitioner has not claimed that the evidence now sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was not in his knowledge or could not be produced at the time he was leading his evidence, despite exercise of due diligence. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision Civil Revision No. 6366 of 2011 3 .. petition has been filed. I have heard Mr.Gaurav Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is dispute in the case about the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle. According to him, respondent No. 3 has led evidence to prove that the driving licence of the petitioner is fake. He has submitted that this has made it necessary for the petitioner to lead additional evidence. Additional evidence cannot be allowed to be led for the reason that the opposite party or a co-respondent succeeds in leading evidence against the interest of the applicant. Additional evidence is not to be allowed with the sole object of rebutting the evidence. The additional evidence can be allowed only if some piece of evidence could not be known to the party seeking to lead it as additional evidence at the time when it was leading its evidence despite exercise of due diligence. If some evidence is sought to be led as additional evidence by a party and it was within the knowledge of that party at the time when he was leading his evidence, there is no reason for permission to lead that evidence. In the case in hand, the evidence has been closed by the petitioner by way of statement of his counsel to that effect. He himself wants to appear in the witness box. Nothing has been put on record to show that he was suffering from any illness on account of which, he was not in a position to come to the court to Civil Revision No. 6366 of 2011 4 .. appear as his own witness or communicate with his counsel. What ever evidence he wants to lead now, was within his knowledge when he was closing his evidence and therefore, learned Tribunal has been fully justified in finding no merit in the prayer. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 18th, 2011 som