Civil Revision No.5587 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.5587 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : November 23, 2009 Dhanak Panchayat ... Appellant VERSUS Faqir Chand ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Piyush Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This petition is directed against the order dated 20.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Sunam, dismissing the application of the plaintiff – petitioner (herein referred as the plaintiff) for permitting him to lead additional evidence. The plaintiff, by way of additional evidence, wanted to prove on record the registration certificate of the Society in order to prove that the plaintiff Society was registered and the resolution authorised the President of the Society to file the suit. Both the documents were already on the record. The said application was contested by the defendant – respondent (herein referred as the defendant), stating that the plaintiff, Civil Revision No.5587 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] despite due diligence, could not prove the said two documents earlier, though these were within its knowledge from the very beginning. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 12.9.2006 and the evidence of the defendant was closed on 27.9.2007. It was further contended that the plaintiff had earlier moved an application for leading additional evidence, which was dismissed on 15.1.2009 and the order was upheld up-to the High Court, therefore, the second application was not maintainable. The documents, now sought to be proved by the plaintiff, are basics of the suit, in the absence of which the suit could not be maintained. It appears that for the fault on the part of the counsel, these documents could not be proved. The petitioner being illiterate person, could never know about the technicalities of law and he could only supply the same to his counsel to bring the same on record. Consequently, it was the duty of the counsel to prove these documents. Such documents cannot be said to be manipulated, forged or fabricated later on and the same could be allowed for just decision of the case and for imparting substantial justice. As regards the earlier such application, the same was not filed for proving the aforesaid documents, but it was to bring on record the notice of redemption. The application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff to prove this notice of redemption was dismissed by the Court on the ground that the plaintiff did not challenge the order with regard to closure of evidence by the Court, therefore, the said order could not be reviewed under the guise of the application for additional evidence. However, the said order is neither an estoppel, nor resjudicata for filing of subsequent application for leading additional evidence. The right to move for leading Civil Revision No.5587 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] additional evidence is quite independent of the closure of evidence at the earlier stage. The additional evidence could be allowed, if the party leading evidence proves that he could not lead the same at the appropriate time despite due diligence or if it is found that the same was necessary for just decision of the case or other substantial cause or if the Court finds it essential to enable it to pronounce the judgment. The argument regarding moving of the application at a belated stage is without any merit as it could be moved at any stage of the case. However, the defendant, who has been put to inconvenience on account of the filing of the application at a belated stage, could be compensated with costs. Since the documents being the back-bone of the case were already on the record and without their proof, the suit was likely to fail, therefore, it is necessary to permit the plaintiff to lead such evidence for a substantial cause. Consequently, the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to provide one opportunity to the plaintiff to conclude its evidence, subject to payment of Rs.3,000/- as costs. November 23, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE