In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CR No. 1916 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.4.2011. Usha Thakur through her GPA Tarloki Nath ..................Petitioner v. Bhupinder Singh and another ............... Respondent. Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present:- Sunil Agnihotri,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswnat Singh,J.(Oral). Plaintiff/petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.1.2011 (P5) passed by learned Civil Judge (JD) Mukerian vide which her application for directing the defendants/respondents to get tape recorded their voice as specimen sample of voice and for permission to get the same compared from expert has been rejected. Plaintiff/petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.42,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum against defendants/respondents. Upon notice the suit was resisted by filing written statement (P2). After completion of pleadings the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed and the case was fixed for evidence of defendants/respondents. During the pendency of the defendants/respondents an application dated nil (P3) was filed by the plaintiff petitioner for directing the defendant- Bhupinder Singh and his witness Bhagwan Singh to get tape recorded their voice as specimen sample and for seeking permission to get the same compared from an expert with the tape recorded conversation alleged with the plaintiff. Upon notice the application was opposed by filing reply on behalf of defendant/respondents and after hearing both the parties the application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.3.2011. Hence the present revision petition. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that learned trial court has adopted a very hyper technical approach while passing the impugned order and has erroneously rejected the application of the plaintiff/petitioner. It is further argued that prayer of the petitioner is very genuine and goes to the root of the case to properly adjudicate the matter in controversy. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the suit was instituted in January 2003 and evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner has already been closed and now it is pending for defendants' evidence. This is also not in dispute that the averment which is alleged in the application in question (P3) were neither pleaded in the plaint nor has come in affirmative evidence of the plaintiff rather for the first time the plaintiff/petitioner has come up with an altogether new plea. The perusal of application (P3) reveals that it is not mentioned as to when the voice was recorded. There is no mention of any date, place in the alleged tape recorded voice. The law is well settled that plaintiff is to prove his case by leading cogent and admissible evidence. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to persuade this Court to substantiate that under which provision of law such a plea can be entertained at this stage. The application is totally vague and in my opinion, rightly dismissed by the learned trial court. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 7.4.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge