Civil Revision No.3255 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3255 of 2009 Date of Decision:09.07.2009 Ashok Kumar son of Hari Ram .....Petitioner versus M/s Sharma Tyre Re-treading Company, Railway Road, Ramlila Ground, Karnal, through its Proprietor .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.L.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is against the order dated 16.05.2009 passed by the trial Court whereby the application moved for recalling him for his re-examination and for producing his father as a witness by way of additional evidence has been declined by the trial Court. The trial Court while declining the aforesaid application has recorded as under:- “This is a suit for recovery on the basis of account books. Now at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, the plaintiff has filed this application for recalling him for further examination-in-chief and to Civil Revision No.3255 of 2009 2 examine his father. In Satnam Singh Vs. Devinder Kaur, 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 81 (P&H), it has been held that to seek the relief of additional evidence the applicant must explain as to why such evidence was not led earlier, which was within his knowledge. The fact that father of the plaintiff maintains account books of his firm was very well within his knowledge. The case is already 9 year old and allowing this application at this stage would reopen the entire case”. In view of the above, no ground to interfere by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. July 09, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE