C.R No. 6926 of 2009 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No. 6926 of 2009 Date of decision : April 22, 2010 Pawan Kumar, ...... Petitioner (s) v. Rajnish Kumar, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Sanjay Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Madan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This petition has been filed against the order declining permission to the petitioner/defendant to lead additional evidence in the form of the following :- “ i) Registry Clerk, office of Sub Registrar, Thanesar, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra with record of sale deed No.7899/1, dated 14.5.2001; ii) Concerned Clerk/HRTC (Head Registry Clerk), office of Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra with record C.R No. 6926 of 2009 ::2:: of Collector rates of the year 2002-2003 of village Hathira, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra; iii) Concerned Clerk office of District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Kurukshetra along with record of Form C (Rule 9) Sr. No.326 of 1998-99 concerning the firm M/S Shish Pal Yash Pal, Kurukshetra registered on 28.7.1998; iv) Shri Raghbir Chand Gupta, Vasika Navis, Tehsil Campus, Kurukshetra with record of agreement dated 24.5.2001 executed by Pawan Kumar in favour of Ravish Kumar son of Shish Pal at Sr. No.527 dated 24.5.2001.” Counsel for the petitioner states that as regards item mentioned at Sr. Nos. (i), (ii) and (iii), he does not press this petition but as regards item No. (iv), he may be allowed to lead the evidence. Item No. (iv) talks of examination of one Vasika Navis who is alleged to have scribed an earlier agreement to sell by the petitioner in favour of one Ravish Kumar son of Shish Pal. In the written statement, the case of the petitioner was that actually the aforesaid Shish Pal is the uncle of the plaintiff and that he was in the habit of getting such documents executed as security for the loan amount. It was also mentioned in the written statement that one such document had been executed in favour of the sons of Shish Pal. In the circumstances, in the face of this plea, it was well within the knowledge of the petitioner that at the time when he led the evidence, this evidence was available with him and he could lead the same. In C.R No.2181 of 2010, M/S Ajay Trading Company vs M/S Karan Beej Bhandar, decided on April 08, 2010, this Court held as C.R No. 6926 of 2009 ::3:: follows :- “...... Learned counsel has stated that the application is necessary for the just decision of the case. I am afraid this argument by itself cannot come to the aid of a litigant who has not exercised due care and caution. Order 18 rule 17-A CPC as it originally stood provide stringent conditions whereunder an application for additional evidence would be allowed. The said section was deleted so as to avoid unnecessary delay and not to grant a carte-blanche to litigants to move an application for additional evidence at any time without any explanation.....” In view of the above, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from such material irregularity or illegality as would require interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) April 22, 2010. JUDGE `kk'