Civil Revision No. 1025 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1025 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.2.2009 Sheoram Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Shri Dharampal and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner S.D.ANAND, J. This petition is directed against the order 27.1.2009 vide which the learned Trial Court negatived petitioner's bid to exhibit the impugned agreement dated 1.9.1994 as Ex. P5. The Trial Court observed that the endeavour was, infact, a camouflage for additional evidence. It is apparent from the record that the evidence of the plaintiff- petitioner came to be closed under the orders of the Court on 1.11.2007. The order was challenged in a Revision Petition ( No. 5912 of 2007) and this Court allowed it on 14.3.2008 and granted one opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to it to examine the hand-writing expert on his own responsibility. The plaintiff-petitioner did so and closed the evidence thereafter. The evidence of the defendants-respondents also came to be closed on 10.11.2008. It is thereafter only that the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application to exhibit the impugned agreement dated 1.9.1994 as Ex. P5. The averment made, in the context, was that the impugned agreement could not be got exhibited as only a photocopy thereof was available at the Civil Revision No. 1025 of 2009 -2- **** time the plaintiff-petitioner entered the witness box, as his own witness, to prove it (i.e. impugned agreement). It is argued that the original thereof was available on the file of another judicial matter which (file) had been brought along by an official of the concerned Court on the date of hearing. If that were so, it would have been appropriate for the plaintiff-petitioner to examine that official in the first instance for the file itself being tendered into evidence. The plaintiff-petitioner could enter the witness box thereafter and prove the photocopy of the impugned agreement by informing the Court that the document being exhibited was a photocopy of the original which was available on the summoned record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner is not in a position to inform why that procedure was not followed. It is in the context of the above facts that the observations made by the learned Trial Court assume added importance. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. February 26, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge