Civil Revision No.3401 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3401 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 23, 2011 Ajit Singh .....Petitioner v. Rajwant Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ....... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13424-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3401 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 9.5.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur, Annexure P3, vide which application moved by petitioner for seeking permission to adduce additional evidence has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the application petitioner has sought permission to examine two witnesses, i.e., Deed Writer and Bohar Singh, an attesting witness of disputed agreement to sell, and however, as petitioner is not aware of the Civil Revision No.3401 of 2011(O&M) -2- name of the person, who scribed the agreement to sell, hence, he does not press his prayer for examination of Deed writer of agreement to sell. However, it is contended that Bohar Singh is a very material witness for decision of the case as he is an attesting witness of the agreement to sell and he has not been examined by respondent-plaintiff and rather he was given up on the plea that he was won over by the petitioner-defendant. It is further contended that respondent-plaintiff took 3-1/2 years to conclude his evidence, whereas petitioner-defendant was granted only 3-4 opportunities by learned trial Court. It is further contended that though evidence was closed by petitioner-defendant himself, however, Bohar Singh, who is an alleged attesting witness of the agreement to sell could not be examined earlier inadvertently by counsel for the petitioner. It is further contended that he is a material witness to be examined in this case and that his application has been dismissed by learned trial Court merely on the ground that respondent-plaintiff have given him up on the plea that he was won over by the petitioner-defendant. Hence, though 3-4 opportunities were granted to petitioner- defendant to adduce evidence by learned trial Court and evidence was also closed by counsel for the petitioner-defendant, however, in view of the fact that respondent-plaintiff had also taken 3-1/2 years to conclude his evidence, one opportunity can be granted to petitioner-defedant to examine a witness, namely, Bohar Singh, an attesting witness at his own responsibility and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. Impugned order is modified to the extent that learned trial Court is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to examine Bohar Singh son of Inder Singh, an Civil Revision No.3401 of 2011(O&M) -3- attesting witness of agreement to sell, at his own responsibility subject to payment of `5,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 23.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge