Civil Revision No. 755 of 2009 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 755 of 2009 Date of decision: 12.2.2009 Randhir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Rattan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Mani Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. S.D.ANAND, J. The defendant-petitioner filed a plea before the learned Trial Court for adducing additional evidence and to thereby tender into evidence the copies of the statements of “DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 recorded in that case” (The reference in the context is to another case inter-partes). The learned Trial Court declined the plea by observing that trial in this case commenced on 1.9.2002 that the evidence of the plaintiffs-respondents was concluded on 27.4.2004 and that the evidence of the defendant- petitioner was closed under the orders of the Court on 17.11.2007. The Court further noticed that, even thereafter, defendant-petitioner filed two Misc. application one out of which was dismissed as infructuous and the other was disposed of vide impugned order. In that very context, the learned Trial Court observed that the defendant-petitioner had been afforded sufficient time to produce the certified copies aforementioned but he had not been able to do so. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that he could not have produced these copies earlier because those statements came to be recorded on 20.7.2008 whereas his evidence had Civil Revision No. 755 of 2009 -2- ***** been ordered to be closed on 17.11.2007. He states that he would just tender the copies of the statements into evidence and would not require examination of any witness to prove those statements. In response to query posted by the Court, learned counsel states that statements would indicate that the makers thereof had made statements in contradiction to the testimony given by them at the present trial. It is apparent from the presentation aforementioned that the defendant-petitioner wants to contradict DW-1, DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 by showing the inconsistency between the statements made by them before the Court and the facts contained in those statements. That can be done only if the recall of those witnesses is ordered. Prior thereto, the defendant-petitioner shall have to adduce evidence to prove that those statements had, infact, been made by the averred witnesses. There is no request for the recall of those witnesses. Infact, on the other hand, the presentation made on behalf of the petitioner is that these documents would be just tendered into evidence. It is apparent therefrom that the reception of these documents into evidence would not be feasible till those statements are formally proved. This Court would not be inclined to grant an order which would not lead to any tangible result. Thus, the mere tendering into evidence of the copies of the statements were not make them substantive character and the Court would not be able to allow the petitioner to raise a plea of inconsistency without the makers thereof being afforded an opportunity to explain it. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 12, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 755 of 2009 -3- *****