CR No.8026/2011(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.8026/2011(O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2011. Jhaggar ....................Petitioner v. Mubin and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Mansur Ali,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/petitioner is in revision against the order dated 1.12.2011 passed by the learned trial court whereby his application for additional evidence has been dismissed. Counsel for the defendant/petitioner heard at length. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that in the suit for specific performance filed by respondent-plaintiff, defendant/petitioner filed an application for additional evidence stating therein that on the appointed date he was present in the Tehsil compound alongwith earnest money when the plaintiffs and other persons came and snatched his money thus rendering the agreement dated 31.7.2006 infructuous. By way of additional evidence, petitioner/defendant wants to examine CR No.8026/2011(O&M) 2 his two sons who were allegedly present at the time of said robbery. Besides that he also wants to produce some documents pertaining to the criminal complaint pending in this regard. The learned trial court after hearing both sides has rightly found that no name of any witness has been given in the written statement in whose presence money was snatched though in the application the names of the alleged witnesses have now been given at the belated stage. It has further been noticed by the learned trial court that defendant/appellant has already availed number of opportunities including several last opportunities before his evidence was closed and that a similar application filed by the petitioner/defendant already stood dismissed on 18.7.2011. It has also been observed by the learned trial court that the defendant has not stated that the proposed evidence was not within his knowledge earlier or the same was beyond his reach. In my considered opinion, the reasons given for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/defendant are just and plausible and no case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is made out. Dismissed. 23.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge