Civil Revision No. 6517 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 6517 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.10.2011 Aman Goel ....Petitioner Vs. Chuni Lal and others ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) This petition assails the order dated 05.10.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner') for submitting additional affidavit in examination in chief. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted at bar that cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner has not yet started and he wanted to file a supplementary affidavit accompanied by some documents. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the petitioner had moved an application to tender additional affidavit before cross-examination commenced. This type of evidence cannot be considered as additional evidence. However, the trial Court has treated the same as an application for Civil Revision No. 6517 of 2011 (O&M) 2 additional evidence. The petitioner could file supplementary affidavit before the commencement of the cross-examination, if he had missed to tender any document or omitted to mention any fact at the time of tendering his first affidavit. It is also very clear that even after filing of the affidavit, he could appear in the Court to submit his supplementary affidavit or make any further statement by way of examination-in-chief before the commencement of cross-examination. As such, the trial Court has taken wrong view of the matter, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Consequently, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to tender his additional affidavit accompanied by the documents, before tendering himself for cross-examination. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondent may move to this Court for recalling this order. (A.N.JINDAL) October 21, 2011 JUDGE ajp