C. R. No. 2559 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2559 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 21, 2010 Nachhattar Singh .... Petitioner Vs. Diwan Chand .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Nachhattar Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 19.03.2010 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dabwali, thereby dismissing defendant's application (Annexure P-3) moved under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC) for summoning original bahi entry for the years 2001 to 2007 relating to account of the defendant. The defendant alleged in the application that the plaintiff has entered amount of agricultural produce sold by the defendant in bahi, of which photostat copy is already on record as Mark-A. The defendant prayed that the original bahi entries of plaintiff for the years 2001 to 2007 relating to account of the defendant be summoned. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the C. R. No. 2559 of 2010 2 case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that additional evidence can be summoned at any stage by the Court. The contention is misconceived and untenable. Provision for additional evidence made in Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has since been repealed. Consequently, additional evidence, if at all, can be allowed only in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 CPC. However, defendant did not move application for additional evidence . The defendant has moved the application under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for summoning of bahi entry. However, Order 18 Rule 17 CPC provides that the Court may, at any stage, recall any witness, who has been examined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The defendant, in application Annexure P-3, has not prayed for recall of any witness, who has already been examined. It is thus apparent that application Annexure P-3 moved under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is completely misconceived. In addition to the aforesaid, the plaintiff-respondent has alleged in his reply that no such bahi is kept by the plaintiff. In view of this assertion of the plaintiff-respondent in his reply, the question of summoning of any such bahi does not arise. It may be added that the defendant confronted the plaintiff as PW-2 and also his other witness Suresh Kumar PW-1 in their cross-examination with photostat copy of alleged bahi entry Mark-A and both of them have specifically denied the same. However, in spite thereof, they were not required to be confronted with the original bahi entry. The matter does not rest here. Even if application Annexure P-3 is allowed, as prayed for, it would be a futile exercise. Mere summoning of bahi entry, as prayed for by the defendant in application Annexure P-3, would not serve any purpose. Even if the bahi entry in question is produced in Court, the same is not per se admissible in evidence and therefore, mere production or summoning of bahi entry would not C. R. No. 2559 of 2010 3 serve any purpose. The trial court has recorded sound reasons in the impugned order Annexure P-4 for dismissing the defendant's application. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 21, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE