C.R. No. 3558 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3558 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.5.2010 Babu Singh @ Baba Singh .......... Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.5.2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sunam, vide which application moved by the petitioner for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Mr. Jaspal Singh was examined by the plaintiff / respondents. His affidavit by way of examination-in-chief was filed in the Court. However, he was thereafter not cross-examined, therefore, his affidavit could not be read in evidence, for want of cross- examination. When the case was at the rebuttal stage, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence, by pleading therein, that wrong affidavit of Jaspal Singh was filed in the Court. He was not in a position to move about or file affidavit. Before the application C.R. No. 3558 of 2010 -2- could be decided, the petitioners moved another application for examining Sh. Shankar Puri, Advocate and Sh. R.V. Vashista, Handwriting Expert to prove that the affidavit of Jaspal Singh was false. It was also the case of the defendant / petitioner, that these facts came to his knowledge only when the plaintiff closed the evidence. It was claimed that the evidence was very material for adjudication of the case, hence, the application for additional evidence. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, for the reason, that evidence of Jaspal Singh was not to be read in evidence, therefore, it was immaterial whether the affidavit filed in examination-in-chief was signed by Jaspal Singh or not. The learned trial Court, came to the conclusion, that the evidence sought to be led is not material for adjudication of the case, and in any case, the evidence in support of the case set up by the petitioner was required to be produced by defendant when he was leading evidence. In view of the averments in the application, the liberty has also been granted to the petitioner to take appropriate action in accordance with law, against plaintiff / respondents in case false affidavit was filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order by contending, that pronote and receipt are attested by two of the witnesses i.e. Puran Singh and Jaspal Singh, therefore, C.R. No. 3558 of 2010 -3- examination of Jaspal Singh is very material for just and proper decision of the case, therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error in declining the plea of additional evidence. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The plaintiff / respondents had produced one of the attesting witnesses, whereas Jaspal Singh was not cross- examined, even though opportunity was granted to the petitioner to cross-examine him. Once the evidence of Jaspal Singh has not been taken on record, it is for the petitioner to take whatsoever advantage is available to him. It cannot be said, that the petitioner was not aware that Jaspal Singh was one of the attesting witnesses of the pronote and receipt when he was leading evidence. The petitioner can not be allowed to lead evidence, by way of additional evidence, which was in his knowledge. The observation of the learned Court, that Jaspal Singh has been won over, is a very material fact to decline the application for additional evidence. The finding of the learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse or not warranted in law, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 25.5.2010 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE