Civil Revision No. 5429 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5429 of 2011 Date of decision : September 06, 2011 Darshan Singh and another ....Petitioners versus Paramjit Kaur and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 19.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam thereby allowing application moved by respondent no. 1/plaintiff for additional evidence subject to cost of Rs 2000/-. Plaintiff in the suit has, inter alia, challenged judgment and decree dated 9.1.1993 passed against her in civil suit No. 736 dated 23.10.1992 in favour of defendants no. 1 and 2 alleging that the plaintiff never suffered the same and the same were obtained by impersonation and fraud etc. Civil Revision No. 5429 of 2011 -2- Plaintiff at the stage of rebuttal evidence wanted to examine Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert to prove that judgment and decree dated 9.1.1993 were not suffered by her. However, trial court did not allow the said prayer because evidence in this regard related to issue onus of which was on plaintiff and therefore, said evidence could not be led in rebuttal. Thereafter the plaintiff moved application for additional evidence to examine the said Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert and the said application has been allowed on payment of costs by way of impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, defendants no. 1 and 2 have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the plaintiff had cited one RV Vashist, Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert in her list of witnesses but did not examine him and therefore, the plaintiff could not be permitted to examine another Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert by additional evidence because the plaintiff was already in the knowledge of the said evidence but did not lead the same and therefore, additional evidence could not be permitted. Reliance has been placed on judgment of this Court in Buta Singh vs. Gurmeet Singh & Ors., 1994(2) Civil Court Cases 66. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. The trial court has found that proposed additional evidence is necessary and would help the court in deciding the Civil Revision No. 5429 of 2011 -3- suit properly. The discretion exercised by the trial court in permitting additional evidence cannot be said to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is correct that the plaintiff already knew that Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert was required to be examined to prove her case but still she did not examine the Expert witness at appropriate stage. However, this by itself could not be sufficient to debar the plaintiff from leading additional evidence. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the trial court has found that proposed additional evidence is essential for proper decision of the suit. The said finding of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal or perverse warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It may be added that the defendants would get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of the additional evidence of the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants would not be prejudiced by proposed additional evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also could not be debarred from leading additional evidence merely because her prayer for leading same evidence in rebuttal was not allowed. Obviously, the proposed evidence could not be led in rebuttal as it pertained to issue onus of which was on the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff can certainly be permitted to lead the same evidence as additional evidence although it was not admissible as rebuttal evidence. In so far as judgment in the case of Buta Singh (supra) is Civil Revision No. 5429 of 2011 -4- concerned, the same is distinguishable because in that case, application for additional evidence moved by the defendant was dismissed by the trial court. Revision against said order was dismissed by this Court. Thus, in that case trial court exercised discretion against allowing production of additional evidence whereas in the instant case the trial court has exercised discretion by permitting additional evidence. Discretion of the trial court in such matters should not be interfered in revisional jurisdiction unless the discretion exercised by the trial court is illegal or perverse or suffers from such other grave infirmity. In the instant case, the impugned order of the trial court does not suffer from any such grave infirmity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 06, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'