C.R. No. 5955 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos. 24280-81-CII of 2009 C.R. No. 5955 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.10.2009 Shavinder Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Babu Singh ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. M.J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 4.9.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr. Divn.), Phul, vide which his application for leading additional evidence was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner by way of additional evidence sought to produce his account maintained in the State Bank of Patiala, branch Kalyan Sukha for the period 8.1.2004 to 22.12.2004. In addition, he wanted to place on record the copy of the judgment dated 29.1.2004, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda. The case set up by the petitioner was that, the documents were material documents having considerable bearing on the facts and decision of C.R. No. 5955 of 2009 2 the case but could not be brought on record earlier due to inadvertant omission. The application was contested on the plea that, the application has been moved at the fag end after the defendant had already led his evidence. It was also the case of the respondent / plaintiff that the additional evidence was not relevant with the issue in dispute. The learned trial Court was pleased to hold that copy of the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge already stood proved in evidence. The Court further held that evidence regarding the accounts was beyond pleading and otherwise also not relevant to the matter in dispute. Mr. M.J.S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery on the basis of pronote, the evidence sought to be produced by way of additional evidence was necessary to come to the conclusion whether the pronote was executed or not, as the petitioner had denied the execution of the pronote. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner further was that, additional evidence could have been allowed in the interest of justice, as it would have helped the Court in passing the judgment, on the dispute between the parties. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kripal Kaur Vs. Smt. Gurmel Kaur and others 2006(4) ICC 527, wherein C.R. No. 5955 of 2009 3 this Court was pleased to lay down that to meet the ends of justice one opportunity could be given to a party subject to payment of costs, in case the evidence to be produced is crucial to the controversy. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bishan Ram Vs. Surinder Singh 1998(2) P.L.R. 182, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down that, the documentary evidence sought to be produced which could have bearing on the controversy and was left out at the time when the party concerned was leading evidence it should not be declined, merely on account of delay, when other party can be compensated with costs. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit by the plaintiff has been filed on the basis of pronote, the accounts of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be said to be relevant to determine the real controversy between the parties, especially when the stand of the defendant is that he had not executed the pronote, and evidence has also been led by the parties on their respective stands. The learned trial Court, therefore, was right in declining the application, as the evidence sought to be produced was beyond pleadings and was not relevant to the controversy involved in the case. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are also not relevant to the controversy in the suit, as the additional evidence is neither crucial nor has any bearing on the controversy involved. C.R. No. 5955 of 2009 4 No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. 15.10.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE