Civil Revision No.1557 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1557 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.03.2009. Sukhdev Singh Petitioner Versus Gurbaj Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.S.Rangpuri, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendant-petitioner (who filed a suit for the recovery of indicated amount on the basis of a pro-note and receipt dated 15.2.2003) otherwise filed a plea to obtain the leave of the Court to examine ASI Gurmel Singh of Police Control room, Mukatsar, additional evidence ( along with complaint No. 667 PCP filed by defendant-petitioner Sukhdev Singh) in additional evidence. The averment, in the context, was that the examination of ASI would enable the defendant-petitioner to prove a plea taken up by him in the course of the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff- respondent had, in connivance with the indicated Commission Agent, prepared a false pro-note and receipt. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court, Civil Revision No.1557 of 2009 -2- **** thereby impelling the defendant-petitioner to come up in revision before this Court. It is argued that the proof of relevant statement (to the police) shall enable proof of the averment that the pro-note and receipt had been falsely brought into being. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner is, however, not in a position to deny that the plaintiff-petitioner already stands examined and further that this document had not been put to him in the course of cross-examination. He also does not dispute that he has not yet filed a plea for the recall of plaintiff-respondent for purpose of being confronted with the statement aforementioned which the latter had allegedly made to the police. It is obvious, in the circumstances of the case that the statement aforementioned which had been allegedly made by the plaintiff-respondent before the police would not become substantive evidence in the absence of an opportunity to the plaintiff-respondent to explain it. In that view of things, the adducing of additional evidence would be infructuous exercise. The petitioner is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 23, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge