C. R. No. 686 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 686 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 10, 2010 Krishan Kumar Miglani .... Petitioner Vs. Balkaran Singh and others .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 3286-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Krishan Kumar Miglani has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Abohar, whereby application Annexure P-1 moved by the plaintiff, for directing defendants no.1 and 3 Balkaran Singh and Dhian Singh to provide their voice samples for comparison, has been dismissed. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants defrauded the C. R. No. 686 of 2010 (O&M) 2 plaintiff and prepared General Power of Attorney, sale agreements and sale deeds. On coming to know of the fraud, the plaintiff, with the help of his son, telephonically talked to defendants no.1 and 3 on 14.09.2004 and recorded their said conversation. Sample voice of defendants no.1 and 3 is accordingly required to compare the same with the recorded conversation. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that recorded conversation is admissible piece of evidence. However, this contention does not help the petitioner. The instant suit was instituted on 27.10.2004, whereas the alleged conversation had been recorded on 14.09.2004 i.e. before the filing of the suit. However, learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff concedes that no such conversation has been pleaded in the plaint. On the other hand, application (Annexure P-1) is dated 16.09.2008 and thus, it was moved almost four years after the filing of the suit. The recorded conversation was also not placed on record along with the plaint. The application was moved when the case was fixed for plaintiff's evidence and last opportunity had been given. Thus, by moving the application, the plaintiff wanted to get further opportunity to lead his evidence. In any event, there is no explanation for the long delay of almost four years in moving the application. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner-plaintiff, while appearing in the witness-box, stated in cross-examination that he did not remember number of telephone of the defendants, on which the call was made by him, nor he remembered the number of the mobile telephone, from which he made the call. The petitioner-plaintiff also expressed ignorance whether the recorded conversation produced as Ex.P-1 in the trial court is original one or duplicate copy. In view of the aforesaid, the trial court has rightly declined the C. R. No. 686 of 2010 (O&M) 3 petitioner's application (Annexure P-1). There is no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. February 10, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE