Civil Revision No. 5444 of 2005 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5444 of 2005 Date of decision: 06.08.2009 Mohinder Singh ....Petitioner versus Kartar Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - None. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2005, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla, disposing of the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner for additional evidence. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.5.1999. The defendant, on notice, denied having executed the agreement. He denied his thumb impression, signatures, as well as endorsement on agreement to sell. The plaintiff/petitioner did not examine handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the thumb impression while leading evidence. The petitioner filed an application to examine the handwriting and fingerprint expert to get the signatures/thumb impression/writing of the defendant/respondent compared, by way of additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 5444 of 2005 -2- The application was contested, by raising preliminary objection, that the application was not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended before the learned Court below, that the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked for allowing the application to lead additional evidence, as the evidence sought to be led was necessary and in the interest of justice. The learned Court below held, that petitioner closed his evidence on 16.8.2002, after availing number of effective opportunities. The application for leading additional evidence was filed on 14.10.2004. The learned Court held, that it was open to the plaintiff/petitioner to have examined an expert in affirmative, but he omitted to do so, therefore, was not entitled to lead additional evidence, by invoking the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC. The learned Court further held, that the petitioner could not be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 151 CPC for leading additional evidence, after lapse of more than two years. This revision petition was ordered to be heard along with civil revision No. 1213 of 2005, which stands disposed of on 11.12.2008, however, this revision was not listed along with the said revision petition. The reading of the order passed by this Court in civil revision No. 1213 of 2005 titled Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others shows, that the controversy in said case was totally different, and the point involved was not same which arises in this case. In Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh (supra), the dispute was regarding right to lead evidence in rebuttal, but the case in hand is regarding right Civil Revision No. 5444 of 2005 -3- to lead additional evidence. The reading of the impugned order shows, that the application for leading additional evidence has been rejected as the petitioner had failed to lead evidence in affirmative, and was negligent in not taking any steps for almost two years after the evidence was closed. The additional evidence was sought to be led when the case was fixed for arguments. The exercise of discretion by the learned Court below does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 06, 2009 R.S.