Civil Revision No. 2897 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2897 of 2009 Date of decision: 25.05.2009. Virender Singh Bains ...Petitioner Versus Mahinder Singh Cheema and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. This Court passed the following order on 27.2.2009 in Civil Revision No.5908 of 2008:- “On further consensual basis, it is ordered that the suit itself shall be disposed of within three month from 02.03.2009. Both the parties shall be afforded two adjournments of a duration of not more than one week. If any assistance, in the form of summonses is required, the party appling therefor shall be entitled to take dasti summonses but the non return or non-effecting of service thereof shall be no excuse for the non-production of evidence. If evidence is not concluded after availing of two adjournments, it shall be deemed to have been Civil Revision No. 2897 of 2009 -2- **** closed.” Thereafter, the petitioner herein raised a claim (before the learned Trial Court) for entitlement to adduce rebuttal evidence. The plea was declined by the learned Trial. The petitioner herein contested the validity of that order before this Court. The matter came up before a Coordinate Bench (A.N.Jindal, J.) of this Court and it was dismissed in limine. Thus, the order passed by the learned Trial Court declining leave to the petitioner herein to adduce rebuttal evidence was affirmed by this Court. There is no indication that the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court came to be challenged in the appropriate forum till date. It is thereafter only the petitioner herein filed a Civil Misc. (bearing No.11604 of 2009) under Section 151 C.P.C. with a view to obtain the leave of this Court to examine the document expert to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents herein under issues No.8 and 10 to 15, the onus whereof was upon the latter. That Civil Misc. was declined by this Court with the following order:- “The controversy between the parties (in Civil Revision No.5908 of 2008) was disposed of by this Court, on consensual basis, on 27.2.2009 by passing the following order:- “The plea raised is misconceived on the face of it. The initial order itself was consensual in character. The petitioner herein never applied to this Bench for any variation. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Civil Revision No. 2897 of 2009 -3- **** learned Trial Court (declining the opportunity to the petitioner herein to adduce rebuttal evidence) has attained finality with the disposal of the Civil Revision No.2559 of 2009 by a Coordinate Bench (A.N.Jindal, J.) of this Court.” It was thereafter that the petitioner herein filed a Civil Misc. No.12267/C-II of 2009 for setting aside the order dated 2.5.2009. It was declined by a Coordinate Bench (A.N.Jindal, J.) of this Court by observing that it would be appropriate to apply before this Bench for appropriate orders. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein argues that order dated 20.5.2009 authorizes this Court to dispose of the plea (initially disposed by a Coordinate Bench (A.N.Jindal, J.) of this Court) afresh. The plea raised is misconceived on the face of it. The Civil Revision No.2559 of 2009 came to be disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.Jindal, J. on merits thereof. That order is not indicated to have been challenged before any higher forum till date. In that view of things, the passing of order dated 20.5.2009 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court does not authorise the re-agitation of the earlier issue before this Bench. The present grievance of the petitioner herein is with regard to order 11.5.2009 (Annexure P-1) vide which his plea for leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence was declined. The plaintiff-petitioner had thereby applied for the leave of the Court to Civil Revision No. 2897 of 2009 -4- **** examine a document expert. There is no dispute that the plaintiff- petitioner wanted to examine the document expert only in rebuttal evidence and that plea of his had been declined by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a revision petition (Civil Revision No.2559 of 2009) which came to be dismissed in limine by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.5.2009. That order having attained finality, the plaintiff-petitioner cannot raise that very plea under the camouflage of a plea for additional evidence. A plea for the leave of the Court to adduce evidence can be conceputalised (and allowed) if the party applying therefor is able to show the Court that it was not in the know of that additional evidence and that additional evidence would have a very relevant bearing on the complete and effectively disposal of the controversy at the trial. In this case, an earlier endeavour to bring on record the testimony of document expert had been negatived by the learned Trial Court and that order was upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. What came to be declined to the plaintiff-petitioner in that matter cannot be allowed to him under a plea for additional evidence. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 25, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge