CR No.4162 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4162 of 2010 Date of decision:07.10.2010. Ranbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mehtab Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the Trial Court by which an application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] has been dismissed on the ground that the evidence, which is now sought to be led by the plaintiff/petitioner, should have been led by him at the time of leading his evidence in affirmative. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were 28 co-sharers who had filed an application for partition of the land in dispute in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Narnaul on 18.09.2002 which was decided on 29.04.2003 and a Sanad of partition was issued. However, all the co-sharers were not satisfied with the order dated 29.04.2003, therefore, they decided to seek cancellation of the partition proceedings by way of a Civil Suit. It is alleged that stamp paper of `2/-, on which the agreement for CR No.4162 of 2010 -2- ***** cancellation of the partition was prepared was purchased in the name of Mehtab Singh (defendant/respondent No.1). Eventually, Civil Suit No.204/03/05 was filed against as many as 26 defendants, in which 25 defendants filed their separate written statements and admitted the contents of the plaint much-less cancellation deed. The aforesaid Civil Suit was filed on 07.08.2003 within 10 days of the cancellation deed dated 28.07.2003. This suit was contested only by defendant No.1 alleging that his signatures on the cancellation deed are forged. After the conclusion of the evidence of both the parties, the case was lingered on for rebuttal and arguments. At this stage, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application on 14.09.2009 for allowing Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Shri Vijay Kumar Rustgi to inspect the file and also to take photographs of the disputed signatures of defendant No.1. The application was allowed by the Court as prayed for. Thereafter, the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for additional evidence in order to plead and prove the report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. The said application has been dismissed, against which the present revision petition has been preferred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no other alternative with the plaintiff to prove his case except for leading evidence by way of report of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert but the learned Court below has dismissed his application only on the ground that this evidence should have been led at the time when the plaintiff was leading his evidence in affirmative. He submits that since this evidence goes to the root of the case, therefore, the plaintiff may be allowed to lead this evidence and defendant No.1 may be compensated in terms of costs. In support of his argument, he has relied upon various decisions of this Court in the cases of Ravinder Singh Vs. Parkash Singh and others, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 249, Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur Vs. Union of India, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 408, Phuman Singh and another Vs. Hazara Singh and others, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 671 and Krishan Kumar Sardana Vs. Sita Ram Adlakha, 2009(4) ICC 190. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on CR No.4162 of 2010 -3- ***** the issue which is to be proved by him. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) PLR 552. He further submits that even if the petitioner is not claiming to lead this evidence in rebuttal and his prayer is for leading additional evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead this evidence in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh Vs. Baru Mal, 1990 Civil Court Cases 701 (P&H). I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The question involved in this revision petition is with regard to the additional evidence. There is no straight-jacket formula for the same. The order of the Court in this regard depends upon facts and circumstances of each case because there are various angles to look at it, like in the case of Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur (supra), this Court has allowed the application for additional evidence on the ground that “where the document sought to be produced in additional evidence is crucial to the proper adjudication and decision of the controversy between the parties, mere delay should not be of much significance”. In the case of Phuman Singh and another, this Court has taken the view that “if it is really essential for just and proper decisions of the case, the Court can allow such evidence”. In the case of Krishan Kumar Sardana (supra), this Court had held that “Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert not produced at appropriate stage – petitioner has been negligent – he cannot be penalized to such an extent as may occasion manifest injustice to him”. In the case of Surinder Kapoor (supra), this court had held that “Court should offer all opportunities to bring the best evidence as possible in the perception of the respective properties and the delay, if any, can be compensated with costs by giving short adjournments”. From the aforesaid decisions, one thing is clear that it is always the discretion of the Court to grant permission to lead additional evidence at the stage of trial if the Court is of the view that the evidence, which is sought to be relied upon, is not manufactured and goes to the root of the case or would help the Court in adjudicating the matter finally between the parties. In the present case, the facts and circumstances are such in CR No.4162 of 2010 -4- ***** which permission sought is required to be granted because except for respondent No.1 (Mehtab Singh) all other 25 co-sharers have already filed their written statements accepting the averments made in the plaint as they all had decided to challenge the order of partition passed by the Revenue Court. Since respondent No.1 (Mehtab Singh) has taken a somersault and is denying his signatures on the said agreement, the best evidence which could decide the case finally is the report of Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert and for that purpose the said evidence has to be allowed to be taken on record. In so far the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1 in the case of Joginder Singh (supra) is concerned, in that case, the application filed for producing the report of the Expert in rebuttal was already dismissed, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above discussion, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.05.2010 is set aside subject to the payment of `5,000/- as costs, which shall be paid by the appellants to respondent No.1 by way of bank draft. Before parting with this order, it would be pertinent to mention that vide order dated 16.08.2010, the comments of the subordinate Court was sent for because this case had been adjourned time and again for over a period of 4 years for rebuttal and arguments. The report dated 31.08.2010 has been received in which the reason assigned is that due to rush of work, the adjournments were given. This reason, however, is not convincing, therefore, I would add a word of caution for the learned Subordinate Judges, who have dealt with this case, to be more careful in future in this regard and should not keep the case for such a long time for the purpose of rebuttal and arguments. October 07, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE