40 Civil Revision No4697 of 2009 1 d IN TH13 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB cO HARYANA AT CHANDIGAIU4 Civil Rcvision No697 of 2009 Dccided on Cl122009 C Petitioner 0 C Vcrsus 1 Hamir Sinh RespQndcn I Z CORAM HON13LE MR JUSTICE KC PURt C I Present Mr Jasbir Rattan Advocate for thc pctitioner 08 Mr ASJattana Advocatc for the 4 KPURl 7 Z This is a revision petitionflled by the pctitionerunder Alticle 227 ofthe Constitutionoflndia with a prayer for settingasidc thc lmpugned order dated 233 2009 6Annexure P l 9 passedby lcarned Additional Civil JudgeSenior Division Dhuri on an applicationfiled by the defendant petitioner for summoningalleged of bills of his Issi Khad Store for inspectionofthe Expertin orderto arrive at the truth Thc brief facts of the case are that lhe plaintiffhas exalnined Balwinder Singhwho has producedabout 92 bills oOsclling khad to the plaintiffbut has not placedoriginalcounter foil of the rccord intcntionally andmalaidely The defendantoplicanlhas got examined the photostat Rashmi 2012.12.28 02: 30 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 41 Civil Revision NoA697 of 2009 2 4 Y copies ofallegedbills flotn Dr tnderjitSinghDocuments and linger Priilts ExpertPatiala who has opinedthat there are nulnbcr of irregulatities aIld hankypankyin the bills andtheapplicationis bona Odconc lJponnolicc rcply10 thc applicationhas lccn Illcd It has becnallegedthat lhe cvidence ofthc dcfendanthas alreadybeenclosed The r1 dcfendant alrcadyexainined Shri I3ikramaRaj SinghChauhan l landwritlg 0c and 13xpert The plaintiffhas examined NavdeepGupta I Document and FingcrPrint Experl hc allcgedbills are not esscntial C5 41 documentsfor the and the said applicationhas been cd to Z delaythe ofthe case The Icarnedtrial Court afler hearingthc Icarncd counscl for thc r particsdisnlissedthe said application vidc order datcd2352009 I a5 Feelingdissatisficd with the aforcsaid order the defendant r hasfiIcd the instantpetitionunder Article 227 ofthe Constitution m Z oflndia for settingasidethe ordcr passcdby lhc trial Court Elm 1 havc hcard learned counsel for the partics and have gone throughthe recordsofthc case The plaintiffhas fllcd lhc prescilt SUit for rccovcry of Rs3904001 on the basis of pronoleand reccijotdated 8 002 The has set up claim for Rs3200001 in respectof deals regarding sale of Fertilizers and Pecticides allegedto be sold to the plaintiffoncredit The defcndantfiled an applicationfor pcrlnissionlO SllllllllOll the originalcounteroils of thc bills produccdby 13alwiildci Siilgll r illspeclionby IOr 1ndcljitSinghDoculnentsand lilgei I1lllts lxpelt 1he Rashmi 2012.12.28 02: 30 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 42 Civil Revision NoA697 of 2009 3 V the said application andthe same has beendislnlssed Learned counsel for theplaintiffhas subinittedthat additional 1SSue NoA has been fralned by the learned trial Court which IS ree produced as under 5A Whetherthe defendanthasadjusted an amount of 1 C Rs3022281 in pronoteandreceiptifso ils effect 7 0 0 Learned counsel for the defendanoetitioner has submittedthat the plaintiffhas producedone Balwinder Singhwho hasproduced 80 bills C5 to disprovethe sad lSSl In fact said I3alwinder Singhis relative of Z plaintiffand has producedthc forgedand fabricatedbills to facilitate the claim of defendanlregarding set up ofthe said ainount It is submittedthat although the petitionerhas producedthe DocuinentsExpcrtbefore the triai a5 Court but he could not got compared the counter foils of the bills produced byBalwinder Singh W Z ln replyto the above noted submissions learned counsel for Om the plainti subinittcd that the learned trial court has callcd uponthe defendantto lead his evidenceat the Orst instanceand thereafterhe closed his evidence on 273 2006 The plaintiffclosed thc evidence on 2282006 The defendant in the rebuttalexamined the Docuinent Expen but hasnot examinedthe counter foils ofthe bills So thepresentpetition1S inereIy movedto delaythe ofthe casc Learned counsel for the petitionerhas sublnittcd that the dcfendantclosed his evidenccon 172007 I have considcredthe submissiotoslnadc by both the sides and hve gonethroughthe recordsofthe case Rashmi 2012.12.28 02: 30 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 43 Civil Revision NoA697 of 2009 4 In this case both the partieshave lcd their evidence The defendant was ordered to lead his evidcncc in thc llst instance as he has admittedthe factuln of pronoteand recciptand has claimed set off The plaintiffclosed his evidence on 2282006 and he producedhis OWll Expert The defendant also exainined his ExpertOll 172007 but has not got m C comparedthe docuinents IlOW soughtto be provcdfroin the Dr Inderjit 0 0 SinghDocuments and FingerPrints Expert The Parliatnenl in its wisdoin I omitted ordcr 18 Rule 17A of lhe Code of Civil Procedure whereby C0 powershavebeengivento the trial Court to producethe additional evidence Z which could not be producedpreviously or despilcdue diligencc So lll these circumstances the learned trial Court has rightlydismissed the r application which alnounts to application for additional evidence I 08 Otherwise also the case of the defendantis based upon the Fertilizer bills which arc said lo bc contained signatures of Hamir Singlolaintiffatld 1 m Z that purpose dcfcndant has alrcadyproduccdthc 15xpertEven if the 8L plaintiffis able tcl prove that he has purchasedFertilizers and Pesticides from Balwinder Singhin that case also the case ofdefendant is not effected The dctails of IIrgeryOll thc allegcdbill has nol bcen pointecoutinthe applicationSo in thesecircuinstances the learned torialCourt has rightly dismissedtheapplicationfor producingthe recordsand for examination of Dr IndcrjitSinghDocutnents andlinger Prints lxloett 1hedelldallt was at IibertytO lllSlSt fclr thc prclduction 0f countcr folls of the bills n question when Balwinder Singhwas exalninecl So after closinghis evidence the presentapplication cannot bc acccptcd Rashmi 2012.12.28 02: 30 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 44 1 Lr 4 Civil Revisiotl Nc4697 of 2009 5 4 ln view of the abovc discussion thc prescntpctiltion has no merit and the salne standsdismissed A copy of this judgmcnlbc sent to lhe trial Court for strict conlpliance W 0 Decemberql2009 0 SV JUDGE C 1 I C5 r 44 Z C a5 1 em Z tl Rashmi 2012.12.28 02: 30 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document