C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 08, 2010 Gurdev Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Harish Chander .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 13785 -C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-6 to P-8 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Gurdev Singh – defendant/appellant has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned District Judge, Bathinda, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4 moved by the petitioner for additional evidence. Suit filed by plaintiff-respondent for recovery of money on the C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) 2 basis of pronote and receipt has been decreed by the trial court. Defendant- petitioner has preferred first appeal against judgment and decree of the trial court. During pendency of the first appeal, defendant moved application for examining Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert as witness regarding comparison of alleged thumb impressions of the defendant-petitioner on the pronote and receipt with his standard thumb impressions alleging that he had not affixed his thumb impressions on the pronote and receipt. The said application was allowed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 20.07.2009. However, on the next date of hearing, the said Expert was not produced as witness and therefore, evidence of the appellant was closed by court order. This Court, in revision petition, modified the order of the lower appellate court and allowed another opportunity to the defendant-petitioner to examine the said Expert as witness, on payment of Rs.5,000/- as cost. However, instead of examining Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta – Expert, the defendant moved application for examining Mr. V. B. Bhatnagar, Handwriting Expert as witness by additional evidence. The said expert is sought to be examined not for comparison of thumb impressions allegedly of the defendant on the pronote and receipt in question, but for giving opinion that the writing of the pronote and receipt is by two different persons. This application has been dismissed by the lower appellate court by impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) 3 case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that examination- in-chief of Mr. V. B. Bhatnagar – Expert has already been recorded by the lower appellate court and therefore, liberty should be given for his cross-examination by the plaintiff-respondent. The contention is completely misconceived. The defendant-petitioner, without any permission, put Mr. V. B. Bhatnagar – Expert in the witness-box to tender his affidavit as examination-in-chief. As noticed herein above, the defendant was permitted to examine Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta – Expert as witness by additional evidence and that too, for the purpose of comparison of alleged thumb impressions of defendant on pronote and receipt, with his standard thumb impressions. However, instead of doing so, the defendant-petitioner put Mr. V. B. Bhatnagar – Expert as witness, for which no permission had been granted and this witness is being examined for a different purpose i.e. to opine that pronote and receipt has been written by two different persons. Obviously, the defendant-petitioner had no right to do so. The defendant played hide and seek with the Court by putting Mr. V. B. Bhatnagar in the witness-box without any permission. In addition to the aforesaid, it is significant to notice that counsel for the defendant-petitioner conceded before the lower appellate court that the Expert had opined that standard thumb impressions of the defendant tally with his disputed thumb impressions on the pronote and C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) 4 receipt. Thus, the cat is out of the bag. The defendant's alleged thumb impressions on pronote and receipt were got compared with his standard thumb impressions, but the Expert gave opinion against the defendant and therefore, in spite of having sought permission for additional evidence to examine the Expert as witness for this purpose, the defendant did not examine the Expert for this purpose. Now, the defendant, for the second time, seeks permission for additional evidence in appeal, for which no justification is made out. The conduct of the defendant is completely mala fide and dishonest. The defendant is playing hide and seek with the Court. Moreover, mere fact that the pronote and receipt has allegedly been written by two different persons would have no bearing on the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that application moved by defendant was allowed by the lower appellate court to permit the Expert to inspect the file and to take photographs. However, that was an administrative or ministerial order and would not entitle the defendant to examine the Expert as witness by additional evidence, when no such permission has been granted. On the other hand, Expert was allowed to inspect the file and to take photographs because additional evidence had been allowed for comparison of alleged thumb impressions of the defendant on pronote and receipt with his standard thumb impressions. However, the defendant, with mala fide intention, now wants to examine Handwriting Expert for a different purpose and not for the purpose, for which additional C. R. No. 2544 of 2010 (O&M) 5 evidence earlier had been allowed. Merely granting of permission to Expert witness for inspection of file and taking photographs would not automatically entitle the defendant-petitioner to examine the said witness by additional evidence, for which no permission had been granted by the Court. Application for additional evidence moved by the defendant in the lower appellate court is completely misconceived and mala fide and frivolous and has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court. The instant revision petition is also frivolous and meritless and is, therefore, dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.2,500/-, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court. If the cost amount is not deposited within one month from today, the case shall be listed for this purpose. July 08, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE