IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM Nos. 22961-62-CII of 2009 & CR No. 5612 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.9.2009 Bahadur Ram ....Petitioner. Versus Narain Dass ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. Nos. 22961-962-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 5612 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the trial court whereby his application for permission to produce the Handwriting Expert by way of additional evidence was rejected. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of 5,20,000/- (Rs.3,12,291/- as principal amount plus Rs.2,07,709/- as interest at the rate of 2% per month till the filing of the suit). After the conclusion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant was afforded as many as five opportunities to lead his evidence, i.e. on 25.1.2008, 26.5.2008, 15.10.2008 and then 18.2.2009 as last opportunity. Even after last opportunity, one more opportunity for 21.5.2009 was afforded to him to conclude his entire evidence, but on C.R. No. 5612 of 2009 -2- that day his evidence was closed by his counsel, Shri S.N. Grover, Advocate, and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Thereafter, the defendant has filed the application for permission to produce the Handwriting Expert by way of additional evidence to prove his signatures on account book entries maintained by the plaintiff in the name of the defendant. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order 3.9.2009 which has been impugned herein by way of present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file with his assistance. The trial court while dismissing the said application of the defendant had noticed that earlier also the defendant filed an application for directing the plaintiff to prove Rokar Bahi/Account Books and J-Forms of the account of the defendant from the years 1990-1999 in evidence which was dismissed on 24.11.2006 by the then Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirsa. Further, the evidence of the defendant in this case was closed by his own counsel on 21.5.2009 and the case is at rebuttal and arguments stage. It has further been observed that the present application has been filed to delay the proceedings. In such a situation, the prayer of the petitioner for allowing him to lead additional evidence cannot be allowed. In view of the above, no ground to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Dismissed. September 25, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE