Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.4.2010 Sharwan Kumar Sethi and another .. Petitioners v. M/s Druckgrafen India Limited .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 18.1.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners- defendants for re-summoning of the plaintiff's witness for further examination, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,00,48,030/-, in which after the conclusion of the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitioners filed application for summoning of PW-1 to confront certain documents to him. The application having been rejected, the petitioners-defendants are before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff, annual reports filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the Registrar of Companies were produced as Exs. P4 to P9, in which list of debtors was attached. However, later on, the petitioners came to know that the list so produced before the court along with annual reports was not part of the documents furnished to the Registrar of Companies. As this fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioners at the relevant time, the witness produced by the plaintiff needs to be re-summoned so as to enable the petitioners to put that document to him, which is quite material for the purpose of decision of the case. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It has been noticed by the learned court below that the witness produced by the respondent-plaintiff was cross-examined at length by counsel for the petitioners. The application was filed after the change of counsel by the petitioners. The case is still at the stage of evidence of the petitioners- Civil Revision No. 2487 of 2010 [2] defendants. Whatever evidence has been led by the plaintiff, the same can very well be rebutted by the petitioners-defendants in the evidence to be led by them. The value of the evidence led by the parties is to be considered by the court at the time of final determination of the claim. The petitioners cannot be permitted to pray for re-calling of the witness produced by the plaintiffs merely on the asking for the reason that at a later stage, they found some document is required to be confronted to him. The same would merely amount to filling in lacuna in the cross-examination of that witness. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.4.2010 mk