CR No.4587 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.4587 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-August 17,2009 Ramesh Singh ....Petitioner Versus Sarabjit Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reports or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported to the Digest? Present: Shri I.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.7.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, whereby the application of petitioner-defendant No.1 for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. The respondent-plaintiff has filed a suit on 31.7.2005 for recovery of Rs.5,20,000/- against the petitioner, inter-alia, on the plea that cheque No.371793 dated 14.3.2006 issued by the petitioner to discharge his loan liability, has been dishonoured by the bank. The petitioner took a plea in the written statement that his signatures on the cheque have been forged. It appears that an issue to this effect was also got framed. The plaintiff as well as the petitioner both have led their evidence and closed the same. Thereafter, the petitioner CR No.4587 of 2009 (O&M) 2 moved the present application to summon the records of the bank to get his signatures compared. The said application for leading additional evidence has been rejected by the trial Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. It is well known that additional evidence can be permitted to be led provided that it was not within the knowledge of the party and or could not be produced despite due diligence by it. In the case in hand, the petitioner having taken the plea in the written statement itself that his signatures on the cheque are allegedly forged, ought to have led evidence to prove that plea, including by getting his signatures compared or other evidence to prove the forgery. The fact that the signatures could be got compared with the undisputed signatures available in the records of Nationalised bank was also in the knowledge of the petitioner from the very inception. No case for leading additional evidence is made out. Dismissed. (Surya Kant) Judge 17.8.2009 AS