C.R.No.5698 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.5698 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.1.2010 Vaid Hira Lal deceased now represented through L.RS .....Petitioner. vs. Laxmi Narain ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.A.Sehoran, Advocate, for the respondent. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) C.M.No.1558-CII of 2010. C.M is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.R.No.5698 of 2009. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.9.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Loharu, whereby his application for adducing additional evidence has been rejected. As per the averments, plaintiff respondent alleging himself to be the owner of suit property filed the present suit for possession and claimed that defendant-petitioner was given this property to be run as hospital. On the other hand, petitioner denied the aforesaid averments and claimed himself to be the owner of the suit property. According to the petitioner plaintiff-respondent has proved his ownership by relying upon a document Ex.P7 which is a copy of an award C.R.No.5698 of 2009 2 pertaining to the year 1958 which was passed by one Bhagwant Singh who signed it in English. During the pendency of the suit it has come into the knopwledge of the defendant-petitioner that earlier two sale deeds of 1982 and 1988 which were executed by Bhagwant Singh in favour of other persons, the signatures are in Hindi and on one sale deed there is thumb impression of Bhagwant Singh. Now by way of additional evidence the defendant-petitioner wants to prove the sale deed of the year 1982 and 1988 to prove the fact that the plaintiff who was relying upon the award Ex.P7, is not a genuine document and this award has not been passed by Bhagwant Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the additional evidence sought to be produced by the petitioner is very necessary for the just decision of the case. According to him Bhagwant Singh the original owner of the land in dispute was an illiterate person. It was asserted that Bhagwant Singh put his signature on the award Ex.P.7 in English, and on the sale deeds in question which are sought to produced were signed by Bhagwant Singh are in Hindi and one sale deed was thumb marked by him and that it was necessary to prove that Bhagwant Singh was an illiterate person and that the award Ex.P7 is not a genuine document. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the petitioner has already been granted sufficient opportunities, and moreover his evidence in the affirmative was closed by order of the Court. Therefore, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence at the fag end of the case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as C.R.No.5698 of 2009 3 raised is misconceived. No such presumption can be drawn with regard to the illiteracy or illiteracy of Bhagwant singh only by placing on record a fact that the earlier document was signed in English whereas the subsequent document has been signed in a different language. Moreover, the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities to lead evidence and thereafter his evidence was closedby order of the Court. Now the case is at the fag end and is fixed for final arguments. In view of the above, I find no error of jurisdicition in the impugned order, the revision is accordingly dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge January 25, 2010 rk