C.R. No. 4445 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4445 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.5.2009 Bala Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Smt. Harbans Kaur ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. BBS Sobti, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the respondent. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated March 4, 2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby at the fag end of the trial when the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, an application for additional evidence filed by the petitioners being LRs of defendants was partly allowed to the extent that they were permitted to prove the certified copy of the order passed by this Court granting the petitioners leave to appeal against the order of the Magistrate whereby the criminal complaint filed by deceased Zora Singh against the respondent was allowed. However, the permission to get disputed documents namely the agreement to sell examined from CFSL, was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that necessity to get the documents examined from CFSL arose on account of the fact that the respondent/plaintiff raised issue at the time of arguments that it is only report of CFSL which can be said to be conclusive and not from any private expert. He further submitted that in case the petitioners are now permitted to get the documents examined from CFSL the same will clinch the issue and the other party will not suffer any prejudice as the issue in the present case is regarding execution of agreement to sell by Zora Singh, father-in-law of respondent/plaintiff, since deceased. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any merit in the submission made., The agreement to sell which is under consideration is dated July 17, 1992. The suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed on August 23, 1993. Both the parties in the present case had led their evidence by producing expert to prove or disprove the thumb C.R. No. 4445 of 2008 (O&M) 2 impression on the agreement to sell dated July 17, 1992. The application was filed for additional evidence after the death of Zora Singh, the vendor in the agreement to sell when his LRs were brought on record. Once there is already a report of expert regarding the thumb impression of Zora Singh on the agreement to sell at the fag end of the trial, the petitioners who are the LRs of Zora Singh cannot be permitted to plead that now they want to get examined document from CFSL when such an opportunity was available with the petitioners to lead their evidence after they were brought on record as LRs of Zora Singh and with Zora Singh when he himself was defending the suit and that too only when arguments were raised by the other side on the quality of the evidence led by the petitioners. At this stage, filing of application for leading additional evidence to prove the documents, the report regarding which is already on record, would be nothing else but to fill in the lacuna in the evidence. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to permit the petitioner to get the document examined from CFSL. The petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 20.5.2009 JUDGE Reema