Civil Revision No.506 and 507 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.506 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:29.01.2009 Sukhdev Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Ujjagar Singh and another .............Respondents 2. Civil Revision No.507 of 2009 Sukhdev Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Darshan Singh .............Respondent Present: Mr. A.S. Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petition filed for letting in rebuttal evidence relating to bank transactions was rejected by the Court below on the ground that it was an attempt of the defendant to delay the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner points out that the suit had been filed for Specific Performance and in the cross- examination of the plaintiff, he admitted that he had an account in Patiala Bank, Jalaldiwal and that it was prepared to produce the passbook in evidence of certain financial transactions. Learned counsel would urge that since the said documents were not being produced as admitted by him in the cross-examination, he was seeking for permission to produce rebuttal evidence for the same. Civil Revision No.506 and 507 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 3. In my view, such an exercise is quite needless because the defendant could always obtain adverse inferences for non-production of documents which the party had admitted in his evidence as available but not produced. That could not afford to any party to stall the trial and compel the production of documents or attempt to produce the documents on the side of the defendant. I find no error in the impugned order passed and the civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 29, 2009 Pankaj*