IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2967 of 2008 Date of decision : May 29, 2009 Mukand Singh Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Satish K. Goel, Advocate for the respondent A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) The challenge made in this petition is to the order dated 29.4.2008 dismissing the application of the defendant/petitioner (hereinafter referred as 'the petitioner')passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Barnala. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as respondent) for recovery of Rs. 1,80,000/-. The petitioner in his written statement denied the allegations stating that he had never signed promissory note in question and the alleged promissory note is forged and fabricated. After framing of the issues both the parties led evidence. Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for leading additional evidence and his application was declined. It is urged that despite due diligence the petitioner could not examine Handwriting expert. Now he wants to examine the expert in order to prove that the promissory note bears his signatures. To the contrary it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that since the petitioner has closed his evidence on his own, C.R. No. 2967 of 2008 2 he can not be allowed to lead additional evidence. Since the petitioner had taken specific plea in the written statement that he had never signed the alleged promissory note and receipt and his alleged signatures thereon are forged . Therefore, in order to prove this plea and provide complete opportunity to the petitioner, it was expedient, in the interest of justice, to permit him to prove the plea. However, inconvenience caused to the plaintiff could be compensated with costs. In the aforesaid peculiar circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner would examine handwriting expert to prove his signatures subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. However, the respondent would also at liberty to rebut the said evidence. It is further made clear that the petitioner would close his additional evidence within three months from the date fixed in the case. (A.N.JINDAL) 29.05.2009 JUDGE reena