C.R. No.8357 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.8357 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision: 22.12.2010. Ram Sarup .....Petitioner Versus Smt. Nirmala Devi ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.32519-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Defendant-Ram Sarup has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 01.12.2010 Annexure P-4 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narnaul thereby dismissing defendant's application Annexure P-1 for additional evidence. Respondent-plaintiff-Nirmala Devi has filed suit against defendant-petitioner for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The defendant-petitioner has inter alia pleaded that there were dealings between the parties and also with plaintiff's husband for which many writings were executed. In the application, the defendant has alleged that plaintiff's husband Kailash Chand had obtained a writing dated 17.04.2000 which was scribed by Dinesh Kumar. The defendant got knowledge of C.R. No.8357 of 2010 (O & M) -2- the said writing after inspecting the register of the scribe. Prior to it, defendant was having no knowledge of the said writing. It is alleged that evidence of said writing is essential. Accordingly, defendant sought permission to lead additional evidence of certified copy of entry from the register of scribe regarding writing dated 17.04.2000. The application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing reply Annexure P-2. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-4 has dismissed the defendant's application for additional evidence. Feeling aggrieved, defendant has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that aforesaid document is very essential for just decision of the suit and, therefore, the same may be allowed to be produced in additional evidence on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the defendant-petitioner has not even pleaded the alleged writing dated 17.04.2000 in the written statement. Consequently, evidence relating to the aforesaid writing being beyond pleadings cannot be admitted even at appropriate stage much less by way of additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defendant in general pleaded that there were several writings between the parties as well as with plaintiff's husband. However, since writing dated 17.04.2000 was not pleaded, evidence relating thereto cannot be permitted, much less by additional evidence. C.R. No.8357 of 2010 (O & M) -3- In addition to the aforesaid, the defendant has not even alleged as to when he came to know of the aforesaid writing dated 17.04.2000. On the contrary, his plea that he learnt of the said writing on inspection of register of the scribe is untenable because the defendant- petitioner himself is party to the said writing as revealed by entry Annexure P-3 from the register of the scribe which is sought to be produced in additional evidence. The defendant was thus in knowledge of the said writing since before the filing of the suit and his averment that he learnt of it now on inspection of register of the scribe cannot be accepted. It would also not be out of place to notice that evidence of defendant was closed by the trial Court vide order dated 03.06.2009. In view thereof also, the defendant has no right to lead the proposed additional evidence. It is correct that in appropriate case, in exceptional circumstances, a party may be allowed to lead additional evidence even after its evidence has been closed by Court Order. Closing of evidence of a party by Court order may not be absolute or inflexible bar to admission of additional evidence, but ordinarily additional evidence at the instance of the party whose evidence is closed by Court order is not permitted. In the instant case, the defendant has not made out any case much less special case for additional evidence in spite of the fact that his evidence was closed by the Trial Court order. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 22.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE