C.R. No. 7680 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7680 of 2009 Date of Decision : 12.5.2010 Jarnail Singh .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Nihalgarh Traders Commission Agents, Grain Market, Patran & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.12.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge ( Jr. Div.) Samana, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff / petitioner, for leading additional evidence stands declined. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for recovery along with interest, on the pleadings, that the plaintiff / petitioner is a farmer, who used to sell his agricultural produce through the defendants, who are the Commission Agents. The case set up by the plaintiff was, that as the full amount of sale proceeds was not paid to the plaintiff / petitioner. Plaintiff made a C.R. No. 7680 of 2009 -2- complaint to the SDM, Samana against the defendant / respondents. On the application moved by the petitioner, the defendants were summoned and after inquiry, a report was made in favour of the plaintiff / petitioner. A copy of the report was placed on record and was marked as 'A” for want of proof. The petitioner thereafter took steps to summon the witness to prove the inquiry report. Though, it was the case of the petitioner, that factum of inquiry having been conducted, was not disputed by the defendants. The evidence of the petitioner was closed, as he, after availing number of opportunities, was not able to summon the witness. Thereafter, application for additional evidence was made, as referred to above. The application was opposed by the defendant / respondents by raising a plea, that the evidence sought to be led by way of additional evidence was in fact within the knowledge of the plaintiff / petitioner when the suit was filed, as it was pleaded in the suit itself. It was also the stand of the defendant / respondents, that as the evidence was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, and he failed to lead evidence in support thereof, therefore, it is a case of negligence. The application moved for leading additional evidence, therefore, could not be allowed. On the grounds referred to above, the order passed by the learned trial Court, is being supported in this Court. In addition to the finding, that the petitioner had the knowledge of the inquiry report, the learned trial Court also rejected the application on the ground, that it was C.R. No. 7680 of 2009 -3- not disclosed as to how the inquiry report, was relevant for decision of the case. On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is true, that a person could not be allowed to lead additional evidence, which was within his knowledge, or which could be found out with due diligence, but this is subject to the exception, that the evidence, which is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case, and is otherwise required for pronouncement of the judgment, is to be allowed. The reading of the plaint would show, that whole of the case of the plaintiff is based on the inquiry report, which is not disputed by the respondents. The evidence to be produced by way of additional evidence, in fact is very material. The facts of the case further show, that the petitioner was entitled to lead additional evidence, as he was not negligent in not summoning the witness to prove the inquiry report, which has been marked as 'A'. The evidence by way of additional evidence is required to formally prove the inquiry report. However, I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the defendant / respondents should be compensated with costs for the inconvenience caused to them, for not leading the evidence at appropriate stage. For the reasons stated above, revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. The application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence is allowed. However, this shall be subject to payment of C.R. No. 7680 of 2009 -4- Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as costs. Needless to mention here, that respondents shall have opportunity to lead evidence, to rebut the evidence now to be produced by the petitioner by way of additional evidence, if so desired. Revision allowed subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as costs for leading additional evidence. 12.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE