C.R.No.1893 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1893 of 2009 Date of Decision : 24.7.2009 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Gurdial Singh etc. ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court on 19.3.2009, whereby an application for permission to lead additional evidence, was dismissed. The defendant No.1-petitioner moved an application to the effect that he could not lead his evidence in rebuttal, as defendant No.2 has led his evidence but due to mistake, the petitioner could not lead his evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the application inter alia holding that the petitioner has not mentioned the provision of Code of Civil Procedure, under which he has sought permission to lead evidence and that now the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. The mentioning of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are to facilitate the working of the Court. The jurisdiction of C.R.No.1893 of 2009 2 the Court is not dependent upon the provision, which may or may not have been mentioned in the application. Even wrong mentioning of a provision is not a ground on which the application could have been declined. The petitioner has sought to lead evidence on the ground that though defendant No.2 has led evidence, but by mistake defendant No.1 could not led his evidence. He has sought one opportunity to lead his entire evidence. It is further pointed out that the case is fixed for 12.8.2009 and on which date he shall produce his entire evidence. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.3.2009 is set aside. The petitioner is directed to lead his entire evidence on the date fixed, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs for delay in leading evidence. In the event, the petitioner either fails to pay costs or to lead evidence, his evidence would be deemed to be closed. Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. 24.7.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE