C.R No.1532 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.1532 of 2011 Date of decision: 4.3.2011. Satpal .............Petitioner v Smt Suman ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. A.K. Antil, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J By way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 16.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Petitioner-husband filed a HMA petition No.61 dated 18.7.2009 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “1955 Act”) against the respondent-wife seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner-husband filed an application dated 17.12.2010 (P.3) for leading additional evidence for summoning and examining of Doctors C.R No.1532 of 2011 #2# of two hospitals as mentioned in the paragraph 2 & 3 of the application. Upon notice, respondent-wife denied the averments made in the application and submitted that the same is just to delay the proceedings and with malafide intention. It was specifically submitted that the petitioner was not suffering from any disease. However, the head injury to their son Deepak is admitted but it is submitted that he has fully recovered and at present not undergoing any treatment from Sant Parmanand Hospital, New Delhi. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is suffering from psychiatry disease and is undergoing treatment in PGIMS, Rohtak and his minor son named Master Deepak has also suffered a head injury and is undergoing treatment in Sant Parmanand Hospital, New Delhi and that both the doctors are very material witnesses for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy as the same will prove the cruel behaviour of the respondent. It is submitted that the impugned order is wholly erroneous and in case, the same is not set aside, the petitioner will suffer a great prejudice. It is matter of record that the issues in this case were framed on 7.10.2009 and after availing sufficient opportunities, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 7.5.2010. Thereafter, respondent-wife concluded her evidence on 11.11.2010 and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence if any and arguments for 7.12.2010. At C.R No.1532 of 2011 #3# this stage, the application dated 17.12.2010 (P.3) for additional evidence is filed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the alleged medical record dated 3.7.2009 (P.1) and 12.5.2010 (P.2) were very well within the knowledge of the petitioner and he could have summoned the concerned doctor at the relevant stage. A perusal of the application filed by the petitioner does not disclose as to why and for what purpose he wants to examine the alleged doctor by leading his additional evidence. There is no explanation that the petitioner has exercised any diligence much less to say due diligence for leading his evidence at the relevant time, which is now sought to be led by way of an additional evidence. Even the learned Family Court has taken note of the fact in para 5 of the impugned order that there is not even pleadings in his entire petition that he was suffering from any disease or that he was ever taken to any hospital for treatment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove specially the fact that the case is at the advance stage, no ground is made to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 4.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge