IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.757 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.02.2010 Balwant Singh ..Petitioner Versus Bhatia Hire Purchase ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present:- Mr.S.P.Soi, , Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Tribhuvan Singla, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI. J (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order by which the learned Trial Court has declined permission to lead additional evidence to the petitioner-defendant in the shape of summoning the concerned Clerk of DTO, Kapurthala to prove that the vehicle in question was never owned by the petitioner. The respondent had filed the suit for recovery against the petitioner claiming that the petitioner had raised loan to purchase the vehicle and had defaulted to pay the same. The plea of the petitioner was that he had never taken any loan but that, since he was the employee of the respondent, may be some blank signed papers may have been obtained from him. Now by additional evidence, which the petitioner seeks to lead, he wants to prove that the vehicle in question was duly registered in his name and thus, the whole plea of the respondent is incorrect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this question goes to the root of the matter and even though he cannot deny a certain modicum of negligence yet the interest of justice definitely require CR No.757 of 2010 -2- that the petitioner be permitted to lead his additional evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that this application at this late stage of the trial merits dismissal on this ground itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner has countered it by saying that for the delay the respondent can be compensated by way of costs. In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the petitioner is allowed to lead the additional evidence if he is able to show that the vehicle in question was never registered in the name of the petitioner. It would be definitely a material fact. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the Trial Court is directed to give one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. In case applied for dasti summons, may be given to the petitioner for witness. If necessary, one opportunity be given to the respondent also to bring evidence in rebuttal. However, this would be subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- as costs to be tendered in the form of draft in favour of the respondent which must be paid on the next date of hearing (which the learned Trial Court may fix for evidence as indicated above). Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. February 18, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE