CR No. 6361 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6361 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.09.2010 Pawan Kumar & another .......... Petitioners Versus Vijay Kumar & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 13.9.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Karnal, vide which application moved by the petitioners for leading additional evidence to examine an expert to compare the signatures of the attesting witnesses Sh. Vijay Kumar and Satyanarain, with their signatures in the service record available at Sugar Mill, Karnal, and by calling the concerned person, for their signatures in Court for comparison, stood declined. The application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial Court, in view of the fact, that the petitioners had moved an application for examining the signatures of these very witnesses by way of rebuttal evidence. The said application was dismissed on 16.9.2009, by the learned trial Court, by passing the following order :- CR No. 6361 of 2010 -2- ***** “'the execution of the agreement was denied by the respondents in the written statement itself. In order to seek comparison of the signatures, the applicants ought to have examine the expert, continuing by leading their evidence. The evidence of both the parties in the present case is already complete and case is fixed for rebuttal evidence and argument. Also, comparison of the signature is not a conclusive proof and it will further amount to delay the proceedings. In view of the above discussion, no ground is made out to allow the application in hand and the same is dismissed.” The petitioners thereafter chose to file another application with the same prayer. The second application was dismissed on 6.3.2010, and revision filed against said order was also dismissed, as noticed by the learned trial Court in the impugned order. The petitioners being still dissatisfied with the two orders, referred to above, filed another application, which was dismissed on 14.1.2010, by the learned trial Court, by passing the following order :- “The learned counsel for plaintiffs stated that he wants to examine PWs Ram Singh, Chandarhass and Anil Kumar witnesses to agreement dated 22.12.2009 Ex.P-1 in rebuttal evidence. The same is opposed by the learned counsel for the defendants that the said witnesses cannot be allowed to be examined in rebuttal evidence and should have been examined when the plaintiff's CR No. 6361 of 2010 -3- ***** evidence was being led. Heard and perused record. The present suit for specific performance of the contract dated 22.12.2009 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Admittedly, the abovesaid persons are witnesses to the abovesaid agreement to sell. The execution of the agreement was denied by the defendants in the written statement itself. The plaintiff ought to have examined these witnesses while his evidence in affirmative was being led any cannot examine them in rebuttal evidence.” The learned trial Court, therefore, in view of the dismissal of the civil revision and number of applications came to the conclusion, that an attempt was being made to fill in lacuna, in the evidence which could not be allowed by way of additional evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order by contending, that the learned trial Court wrongly placed reliance on the dismissal of the earlier applications, by ignoring the fact, that those applications were moved for examining the expert in rebuttal, whereas the present application was by way of additional evidence. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, was that the learned trial Court had the jurisdiction to allow a party to lead additional evidence, which may be necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case for doing substantial justice. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners CR No. 6361 of 2010 -4- ***** can not be accepted. In order to succeed in the application for additional evidence the party is required to prove, that the evidence sought to be led was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be known with due diligence. Only in exceptional cases the additional evidence can be allowed, in case the evidence is necessary for just and proper adjudication of the case, to do substantial justice,in case the evidence is necessary for the Court to record a finding. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it may be noticed, that prayer for additional evidence was made to overcome the orders passed by the learned learned trial Court, not once but on three occasions. This prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the learned trial Court, earlier as noticed above. It was for the plaintiff / petitioners to lead this evidence in affirmative, and not by way of rebuttal or by additional evidence. No ground, therefore, is made out to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. 30.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE