CIVIL REVISION NO.850 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 12, 2008 Surinder Kaur and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Kamikar Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. An application filed by the petitioners for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. The revision is directed against the said order. Respondent-plaintiff examined hand-writing expert to prove the signatures of Sunder Singh, Sarpanch, appearing on the will, being set up by the respondent and on the revocation deed set up by the defendant-petitioners. Alleging that the report given by the hand-writing expert is vague on the ground that the signatures were not compared with any standard signatures, the petitioners filed an CIVIL REVISION NO.850 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: application for leading additional evidence to examine an hand- writing expert to compare the signatures of Sunder Singh with the standard signatures appearing on two sale deeds dated 11.2.1969 and 26.5.1973. This prayer of the petitioners was opposed, pointing out that the provisions governing the leading of additional evidence stand omitted from the Code of Civil Procedure. Plea further is that the report of hand-writing expert is rather elaborate and there is no need to examine any other expert. In addition, it is also urged that the sale deeds with which the comparison of the signatures is sought, are not on record. The suit is filed in the year 1999. The evidence of the parties has already been closed. The plaintiff has even led the evidence in rebuttal. At this stage, making a prayer for leading additional evidence would certainly be belated. This aspect is required to be viewed in the background that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC, governing the leading of additional evidence is deleted. The petitioner-defendants were bound to produce any evidence to prove the signatures while leading their evidence. Once they have slept over their rights, they can not now get up and seek this permission. It is not made out from the record that this evidence could not be produced earlier despite due diligence on the part of the petitioners. Case of exercise of inherent powers, at this stage, as such, is not made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the case of Smt.Gurdev Kumar Vs. Smt.Gurdial Kaur alias Jaswant CIVIL REVISION NO.850 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: Kaur and others, 2004 (1) P.L.R. 164. The ratio of law laid down in this case would not be attracted in the facts of the present case. In this case, the defendants had placed on record the disputed will after moving an application for additional evidence. This application of the defendants was allowed even at a stage when even the plaintiff's evidence had been closed in rebuttal. In this background, this Court observed that opportunity must be granted to the plaintiff to lead additional evidence in rebuttal. Such a situation does not arise in this case. Here the petitioners were bound to know that the plaintiff is going to prove the will by proving the signatures appearing thereon and as such, they could be expected to lead the relevant evidence in support of their case. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. February 12, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE