IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1020 of 2009 Date of decision : 16.11.2009 Baldev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Som Nath ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ..... Present : Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Liyakat Ali, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) The defendant – petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure P-4) passed by the trial Court in Civil Suit No.1317 dated 4.12.2003, whereby the application filed by him for leading additional evidence in the form of a certified copy of the judgment dated 22.12.2008 was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a suit filed by Sito Devi wife of the present plaintiff – respondent (Som Nath) against Jarnail Singh, brother of the present petitioner, for recovery of Rs.9,01,000/- (i.e. Rs.8,50,000/- principal amount and Rs.51,000/- on account of interest), it was pleaded by defendant - Jarnail Singh that Kiran Kumar son of plaintiff had obtained his signatures and that of his brother Baldev Singh on two separate pronotes and receipts. The said suit was dismissed on 22.12.2008 and it was held by the trial Court that the witnesses of the Civil Revision No.1020 of 2009 -2- said pronote allegedly executed by Jarnail Singh and the present pronote were the same. Further, the trial Court in that suit vide judgment dated 22.12.2008 had not accepted the pronote and receipt to be genuine. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the additional evidence which was sought to be produced by the petitioner was relevant and essential for the just decision of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court ought to have allowed the additional evidence by producing the certified copy of judgment of the trial Court dated 22.12.2008 passed in the case of “Sito Devi Versus Jarnail Singh” as certain findings had been recorded by the trial Court which would help the Court to effectively adjudicate the present suit. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondent stated that the trial Court was right in declining the application for additional evidence and the certified copy of the judgment, referred to above, in Civil Suit titled “Sito Devi Versus Jarnail Singh” decided on 22.12.2008, was not relevant for the purpose of deciding the rights of the parties in the present case. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondent that an appeal in the case of “Sito Devi Versus Jarnail Singh” is pending before the lower appellate Court and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the said judgment. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have Civil Revision No.1020 of 2009 -3- perused the record. In the present case, defence has been taken by the petitioner-defendant that his signatures were obtained by Kiran Kumar son of plaintiff on the blank pronote and receipt and it is not disputed that the witnesses of the pronote and receipt allegedly executed by him as well as the pronote and receipt which were involved in the case of “Sito Devi versus Jarnail Singh” decided on 22.12.2008, were the same. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, judgment dated December 22, 2008 is a relevant piece of evidence. However, it shall be for the trial Court to see the evidentiary value of that judgment vis-a-vis the controversy involved in the present case at the time of deciding the suit. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.2.2009 is set aside. The defendant – petitioner shall be entitled to produce the certified copy of the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed in Civil Suit titled “Sito Devi Versus Jarnail Singh” by way of additional evidence in the interest of justice in accordance with law. 16.11.2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) poonam JUDGE