CR No. 5517 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5517 of 2009 Date of decision:- 4.8.2010 Rajesh and others ......petitioners vs. Sada Ram ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.A. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 6.8.2009 whereby an application filed by the defendant-petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence was declined. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by an Order on 30.10.2004 in C.R. No. 6035 of 2004, the plaintiff was granted an opportunity to lead evidence on 31.3.2006. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not examined as witness, thereafter. On the other hand, the defendant was granted last opportunity to lead their entire evidence on 3.3.2006. A statement was made by the learned counsel for defendant that he is to examine only Rajbir. Case was adjourned to 30.3.2006 for statement of Rajbir CR No. 5517 of 2009 -2- but the defendant wanted to examine the other witnesses namely Jai Narayan and Kailash Chand but the same were not permitted to be examined, in view of the statement of the learned counsel for the defendant that only Rajbir would be examined. The evidence of the defendant was closed thereafter. The plaintiff moved an application for additional evidence of three witnesses, Jai Narayan, Advocate and Kailash Chand, Lambardar and Vijay Yadav for the reason that such witnesses were present before the Court and have tendered their affidavit on the case file but the only Rajbir was examined on 26.7.2006 and the other witnesses were not permitted to be examined through their affidavits by examining-in-chief were on record. Since, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses was said to be necessary, plaintiff moved an additional application for evidence which has been declined by the trial Court by way of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that even if the learned counsel for the plaintiff has made a statement that he will examine Rajbir as a witness that if the witnesses were present before the Court, the Court was bound to record the said witnesses. Reference is made to Mange Ram vs. Brij Mohan Singla, AIR1983 SC 925. In view of the said fact, the orders to close the evidence of defendant and not permitting the defendant to examine the witnesses who are present in Court was not justified in law. Since, CR No. 5517 of 2009 -3- the defendant in stead of challenging the aforesaid order filed an application for additional evidence, the learned trial Court should have allowed such application and permit the defendants to examine the witnesses who were present in Court on an earlier date. The reasoning given by the trial Court is not permitting to lead additional evidence suffers from any patent illegality which causes substantial injustice to the petitioner. In view of the said fact, this revision petition is allowed and the order of the trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to lead additional evidence by examination of the witnesses aforesaid. Disposed of. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 4.8.2010 preeti