C.R. No.5694 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5694 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 7.9.2010 Amrit Lal Jain ……Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.7.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur, whereby the learned trial Court has permitted the defendant (respondents herein) to pro- duce additional evidence on record. 2. Learned trial Court in the impugned order has observed as under:- C.R. No.5694 of 2010 (O&M) -2- “Whether or not the documents sought to be adduced in additional evidence have bearing on the merits of the case is a matter which would be considered by the Court at the time of final arguments and it is always in the interest of justice that a case be decided after taking into consideration all the evidence that could be adduced by the parties and keeping in view the fact that the applicant/de- fendant is ‘State of Punjab’ and since the Courts should be zealous to protect the inter- est of the State who should not suffer for the apathy of officials who are to defend the inter- est of state and also in view of the fact that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff as he would get an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and also has the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Hence, the present ap- plication is allowed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned trial Court has committed jurisdictional error while permitting the defendant/respondent to lead addi- tional evidence. He further argued that after closing of the evidence, none of the parties should be permitted to place on record additional evidence. 4. In the present case, defendant/respondent sought per- mission from the learned trial Court to place on record C.R. No.5694 of 2010 (O&M) -3- summon sent to the plaintiff (petitioner herein) as well as copy of the application bearing reference No.1159 dated 21.6.2004. Both the documents are record of the defen- dant/respondent. Both the documents cannot be pre- pared/fabricated during the trial of the suit. If learned trial Court has exercised its discretion in favour of the defen- dant/respondent permitting him to place on record addi- tional documents, this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be slow to interfere in the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court. 5. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 07th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish