C.R. No. 1045 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1045 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 15, 2011 Bhawanjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Gurmail Singh Gill …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for Mr. T.P.S. Tung, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is a defendant in a suit for recovery of ` 28,62,000/- . Vide impugned order dated June 15, 2010, at a stage where the defendant- petitioner has already closed his evidence, an application for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC has been dismissed refusing permission to the defendant- petitioner to produce a mortgage deed C.R. No. 1045 of 2011 [2] dated June 9, 2008 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Jagraon, (Ludhiana0. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has caused prejudice to the rights of the defendant- petitioner to produce additional evidence. I have heard counsel for the defendant- petitioner and gone through the impugned order. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff- respondent on the basis of one agreement alleged to have been executed by defendant- petitioner in favour of the plaintiff- respondent. The said agreement has been claimed by the defendant- petitioner to be a fabricated and forged document. On asking of the Court, counsel for the defendant- petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court as to how the mortgage deed dated June 9, 2008 has got bearing on the adjudication of the matter. No ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. Dismissed. February 15, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE