Civil Revision No.717/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.717/2011 Date of decision:1.2.2011. Jagdev Singh .............Petitioner v Gurjit Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.Aman Bansal,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Defendant no.2/petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 4.12.2010 (P4) whereby his application for adducing additional evidence has been dismissed. Facts in brief are that plaintiff-Raghbir Singh (respondent nos.1 and 2 are his Legal Representatives, since he died during trial) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.11,50,000/- and for a decree of declaration that the two sale deeds dates 16.5.2005 and 18.5.2005 executed by defendant Jagdev Singh-petitioner herein- in favour of co- defendant be declared null and void being fraudulent transfers with further decree for permanent injunction. The said suit for recovery was based on pronote dated 1.5.2004 executed by petitioner-defendant Jagdev Singh. The plea taken by the defendant-petitioner was that he had never taken any money from the plaintiff and the pronote/writing dated 1.5.2004 was Civil Revision No.717/2011 2 forged document. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the evidence of Tarsem Lal, the alleged Scribe of the writing is very material and therefore, prays for one opportunity to lead his evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner , this Court is not persuaded to agree with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that right from the beginning the plea of the defendant was that the pronote/writing dated 1.5.2004 was a fabricated document. It was thus incumbent upon the defendant to produce all his evidence in support of his pleadings. His evidence was closed on 29.7.2010. It is not his case that sufficient opportunities were not granted to the defendant/petitioner. It is also not disputed that the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence of plaintiff when the defendant petitioner moved the application for examining Tarsem Lal, the alleged Scribe of the writing. In my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly rejected the application since the same is not bona fide and had been moved at an advanced stage of the trial when the entire evidence has already been led. Dismissed. 1.2.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge