IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1800 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.3.2010 M/s Ganesh Mal Nanak Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Lakhwinder Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dabwali whereby application of the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, a suit for recovery on the basis of books of accounts was filed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that on realizing that the Bahi entries have not been proved by the persons who had actually made the said entries and thus, only to prove those Bahi entries which were already exhibited, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence to summon those partners who made the specific entries in the Bahi. The said application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the trial Court erroneously. Hence the present revision petition. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a fair chance has to be given to the parties for proving their case and in case the Court finds that any evidence which is required for the just decision of the case and which has not been led, CR No.1800 of 2010 -2- the Court may exercise its power to permit a person to lead additional evidence and thus, keeping in view the settled proposition of law that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice, this revision petition be allowed and the petitioner be allowed to lead additional evidence as prayed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. I find no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the parties have already led their evidence and now the case is fixed for rebuttal, if any, and arguments. Under the garb of this application, the petitioner cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in his case. The evidence which petitioner wants to produce was already within its knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be held that the additional evidence could not be led despite due diligence. Thus, I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. March 18, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE