CM No.12289 CII of 2007 in C.R. No.3084 of 2007 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.12289 CII of 2007 in C.R. No.3084 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.2.2008 Sukhpal Chand .....Petitioner Vs. Satish Kumar ...Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Naresh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision is to an order dated 16.4.2007 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Malout, allowing an application filed by the plaintiff, to examine a handwriting expert, so as to prove that the acknowledgment was recorded in the handwriting of Sukhpal Chand. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court could not have allowed the prayer for additional evidence, as the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments. It is further submitted that as the petitioner asserted in his written statement that the acknowledgment was forged, the plaintiff should have produced the handwriting expert in his evidence in the affirmative. Reliance is placed upon M/s Ram Gopal Banarsi Dass V. Satish Kumar and another 1990 Civil Court Cases 836 (P&H), M/s Fashion Express, Dundahera,Gurgaon V. Smt.Archna Dass, CM No.12289 CII of 2007 in C.R. No.3084 of 2007 (O&M) 2 2002(1) RCR (Civil) 780, Tarlok Singh V. Sohan Singh 2002(2) PLR 302, Sukhpal Singh V. Sowinder Singh, 1991(1) PLR 395 Jagir Chand V. Jagsir Singh, 2000(1) PLR 360 and Buta Singh V. Gurmeet Singh, 1994 (2) PLR 276 for the aforementioned assertion. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,22,200/- on the basis of entries in the account books and also placed reliance upon an alleged settlement of accounts dated 25.12.2000 allegedly signed by Sukhpal Chand by asserting that the settlement of accounts was an acknowledgement of the debt. Sukhpal Chand (defendant no.2)author of the alleged acknowledgment, did not step into the witness box, therefore, depriving the respondent/plaintiff of an opportunity to confront him with the handwriting and signatures. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in granting liberty to the plaintiff to lead additional evidence. Order 18 Rule 17 A stands deleted from the C.P.C. The judgement in Ram Gopal Banarsi Dass (supra) is not applicable, as in the said case additional evidence was sought to be produced after argument had commenced. The judgement in M/s Fashion Express (supra) dealt with a situation where the applicant was aware of the need to get the signatures examined from an expert but still chose to file a belated application. In the instant case, the petitioner did not step into the witness box depriving the respondent/plaintiff of an opportunity to confront him and, therefore,the said judgement would not advance the petitioner's case. In Tarlok Singh Vs. Sohan Singh (supra), the dispute was entirely different. The plaintiff CM No.12289 CII of 2007 in C.R. No.3084 of 2007 (O&M) 3 was not allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal as he had closed his evidence in the affirmative. In Sukhpal Singh Vs. Sowinder Singh (supra), the situation was entirely different. In Buta Singh Vs. Gurmeet Singh (supra), it was held on facts that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to establish due diligence and was, therefore, not entitled to lead additional evidence. As noticed herein above, the respondent/plaintiff has placed reliance upon an acknowledgment allegedly subscribed and signed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not step into the witness box, thus, depriving the respondent/plaintiff of an opportunity to confront the petitioner with the said document. The respondent/plaintiff could not foresee that Sukhpal Chand petitioner would not appear as his own witness. The petitioner's assertion that the respondent/plaintiff should have been vigilant and led the evidence of an expert in his evidence in the affirmative is, therefore, misplaced. The power to allow or disallow a prayer for additional evidence, rests primarily on a judicial perception as to the significance of the additional evidence, subject however, to the party establishing the exercise of due diligence, the bonafides of the plea and most significant of all that the additional evidence prayed for, would advance the cause of justice and assist the Court in its endeavour to arrive at a correct and just decision, as to the pending dispute. As the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law or discloses an arbitrary or perverse exercise of jurisdiction, the revision is dismissed. 25.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE