Civil Revision No. 6327 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6327 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 17th, 2011 M/s Himalayan Gas Agency .... Petitioner Versus Preeti Sharma and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by respondent No.1, M/s Himalayan Gas Agency, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.9.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panchkula (for short, “the Tribunal”) vide which the application of the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed. Preeti Sharma, respondent No.1, had brought a claim petition for compensation under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) against Bhupinder Singh, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.HP-64-8811, the petitioner, the owner of the said truck and the New India Civil Revision No. 6327 of 2011 2 .. Assurance Company Limited, the insurer of the truck. In the said claim petition, the petitioner filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence for examining concerned clerk from the Regional Transport Authority, Solan alongwith record of Registration Certificate of the said vehicle in the name of M/s Himalayan Gas Agency, the owner of the said truck and also the driver of the said vehicle. It is averred that respondent No.3, the insurer has been granted permission to examine a witness in additional evidence vide order dated 9.3.2011 and after examination of that witness, necessity arose to rebut the said evidence. Therefore, prayer is made for examination of the aforesaid witnesses for just and proper decision of the claim petition. It is added that no prejudice would be caused to the other party if the application was allowed. While the claimant endorsed no objection to the prayer, respondent No. 3 has opposed the application claiming the same to be not maintainable. It is further averred that the allowing of the application would amount to reopening of the case. It is further averred that the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead evidence to rebut the evidence of co-respondent. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Tribunal has dismissed the application with costs, vide order dated 16.9.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed. Civil Revision No. 6327 of 2011 3 .. I have heard Mr. Vivek Suri, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. It can be noticed in the first sight that the application has been filed with a view to rebut the evidence led by respondent Nol.3. Nothing has been pleaded in the application as a reason to show that this evidence could not be led by the petitioner or was not within its knowledge when it was leading its evidence despite the exercise of due diligence. When the application of respondent No.3 was allowed for examination of a witness, permission was given to respondent No.2 also to lead evidence by way of tendering documents because permission sought was limited to tendering documents. At that time, no prayer was made to allow the petitioner to examine these witnesses. It will be further clear from the application that nothing has been mentioned therein to show as to on what facts these witnesses are to be examined. The application further does not make clear as to if the statements these witnesses would make, would be relevant to the facts in controversy. Unless evidence sought to be led as additional evidence is shown to be relevant to the facts in controversy, the same cannot be allowed. Moreover, additional evidence cannot be allowed just to rebut the evidence of a co-respondent. As I have already said, nothing has been averred in the application that despite due diligence, this evidence was either not in the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced at the time when the petitioner was leading its evidence. Civil Revision No. 6327 of 2011 4 .. For these reasons, the application for additional evidence appears to have been rightly dismissed. Finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the revision petition is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 17th, 2011 som