Civil Revision No.6147 f 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6147 of 2010 Date of Order: 19.04.2011 Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Jagtar Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate for respondent no.1. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 04.06.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, rejecting the petitioner's application for additional evidence. Jagtar Singh, respondent no.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.9,76,635/-. The petitioner filed a written statement admitting receipt of the amount but averred that he has returned Rs.7,00,000/- in the presence of Darshan Singh. Upon conclusion of his evidence, the petitioner filed an application for examining Darshan Singh as a witness to establish the payment of Rs.7,00,000/-. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner's evidence has been closed and as the Civil Revision No.6147 f 2010 -2- petitioner was aware of the payment of Rs.7,00,000/-, paid in the presence of Darshan Singh, he should have produced this witness while leading his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that closure of evidence does not prohibit a party from filing an application for additional evidence. As Darshan Singh is a witness to the payment of money to respondent no.1 and has already deposed in an enquiry conducted by the police, the interest of justice would require that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to examine Darshan Singh. Counsel for respondent no.1, however, submits that as the petitioner's evidence was closed by order, he cannot be granted an opportunity to lead additional evidence. It is further submitted that the trial court granted 14 opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence before closure of his evidence by order. The negligence of the petitioner in citing Darshan Singh as a witness disentitles him to any relief. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Closure of evidence by order, does not prohibit a Court from considering an application for additional evidence. A court, considering a plea for additional evidence considers the nature of the evidence, the necessity of such evidence to the adjudication of the pending lis and after taking into consideration all other relevant factors, proceeds to accept or reject the application. The petitioner's plea that Darshan Singh is a witness to the payment of Rs.7,00,000/-, is pleaded in the written statement. The fact that Darshan Singh should have been examined while the petitioner was Civil Revision No.6147 f 2010 -3- leading the evidence though a valid consideration, should not have led to the dismissal of the application as the petitioner could be burdened with costs. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the revision is allowed, the order dated 04.06.2010 is set aside and the trial court is directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to produce Darshan Singh as his witness, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. If the need so arises, respondent no.1 may be granted an opportunity to lead evidence to rebut any statement made by Darshan Singh. In case, the petitioner does not produce Darshan Singh on the date so fixed, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner. Parties are directed to appear before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, on 30.05.2011. April 19, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE