CR No. 3916 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3916 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20.10.2009 Paramjit Kaur and another ....Petitioners. Versus Shri Naurang Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Vikas Sagar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 8.5.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by them for leading additional evidence, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioners by way of additional evidence have sought to produce the salary record of the defendant-respondent as according to them, this is required for just and proper decision of the suit which has been filed for claiming maintenance from the defendant. It was pleaded that in spite of due diligence, the plaintiffs could not produce this evidence on account of suspension of the defendant from service. CR No. 3916 of 2008 -2- The trial court declined the application for additional evidence by holding that the salary record of the defendant now sought to be produced by the plaintiffs by way of additional evidence was well within their knowledge at the time of leading their evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed by way of additional evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Jeeto @ Smt. Manjit Kaur v. Union of India, 2007 (4) CCC 678 (P&H) and submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record by way of additional evidence are essential for just and proper adjudication of the case. According to the learned counsel, once the additional evidence is required for effectively adjudicating the dispute, the same should be allowed to be produced in the interest of justice, and the matter for leading additional evidence should not be shut. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while controverting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the order passed by the trial court and submitted that the plaintiff-petitioners were not vigilant at the time of leading evidence and, therefore, the application for leading additional evidence had rightly been dismissed by the trial court. Petitioner No.1 who is wife and petitioner No.2 who is minor daughter of the defendant have filed the suit against the defendant claiming maintenance from him under Sections 18 and 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and other reliefs. It would not be CR No. 3916 of 2008 -3- possible for the court to come to a just conclusion with regard to the quantum of maintenance without production of the salary record of the defendant-respondent. In other words, the production of the salary certificate, as sought by the plaintiffs, is essential for the just and proper adjudication of the suit. In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed and the order dated 8.5.2008 passed by the trial court is set aside. The petitioners are allowed to produce the salary record of the defendant by way of additional evidence. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. October 20, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE