CR No. 1613 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 1613 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.9.2009 Manender Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Pohlu ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Jagdeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Hooda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Declining of an application for additional evidence filed by the plaintiff-petitioner by the trial court vide order dated 9.3.2009 has given cause to him for approaching this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the additional evidence was required for getting the signatures of the defendant on the alleged agreement to sell entered into between the parties compared with the specimen. The trial court while declining the aforesaid application has observed that the plaintiff had already examined both the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe besides examining himself as PW1 to prove the execution of the agreement. The relevant observations of the trial court in para 5 of its order, read thus:- “5. Though the plaintiff has moved an application CR No. 1613 of 2009 -2- for adducing an additional evidence but no cogent reasons have been put forward by the plaintiff as to for what purposes, the additional evidence is sought to be recorded in the present case. The alleged agreement entered into between the parties has been duly proved on the part of the plaintiff who has examined two of its attesting witnesses as well as scribe and has also examined himself as PW1 in the case. The comparison of signatures of the defendant so put by him in a criminal case in an English language so pending against him would be of little relevancy when positive as well as an overwhelming evidence has already been adduced on the file on the part of the plaintiff. The documents sought to be proved by way of additional evidence thus do not appear to be relevant for the purpose of just decision of the present case. The present case is at its final stage where both the parties have closed their respective evidence.” In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, no ground for interference by this Court with the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the trial court is made out. Dismissed. September 22, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE