C.R.No.4587 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4587 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.7.2011 Rohi Ram ….Petitioner Vs. Vinod Kumar ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate and Mr. R.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (P.5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sunam whereby his application for leading additional evidence has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a Civil Suit No.421 dated 4.8.2006 for specific performance and permanent injunction on the basis of agreement dated 17.6.2002 regarding the land measuring 40 kanal as described in the head note of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 15.4.2011 (P.3) for leading additional evidence. Upon notice, the same was opposed by way of reply dated 22.4.2011 (P.4) and after hearing both the sides, the application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.7.2011, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside as the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is wholly misplaced based on conjectures and surmises. It is further C.R.No.4587 of 2011 #2# argued that in case, the defendant-petitioner is not permitted to lead additional evidence, his case will be materially prejudiced. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed way back on 4.8.2004 on the basis of an agreement dated 17.6.2002 and the defendant-petitioner filed his written statement on 7.10.2004 inter alia pleading that the alleged agreement dated 17.6.2002 is the result of fraud and forgery as well as without consideration and the same was never executed by the defendant- petitioner. After framing of issues, plaintiff-respondent concluded his evidence including a Document and Finger Print Expert. Thereafter, defence evidence was led by availing six opportunities and while appearing as DW1, defendant-petitioner has specifically admitted in his cross examination that he did not thumb mark the agreement dated 17.6.2002 (Ex.P.1) and further denied the thumb impressions Q1 to Q4 besides stating that he never put these thumb impressions on any blank paper or stamp papers. A perusal of the application filed for leading additional evidence reveals that the defendant-petitioner has filed the same to produce Dr. Inderjit Singh, Document & Finger Print Expert to prove that alleged agreement to sell dated 17.6.2002 has been executed on blank thumb marked stamp papers and it is a case of fraud and forgery. It is further submitted in para 4 of the application that the defendant is selling his crop at the shop of the plaintiff-respondent being a commission agent, who usually obtains thumb impressions of the farmers on the blank papers and later on converts into valuable security or other documents of agreement to sell as C.R.No.4587 of 2011 #3# has been done in the present case and thus the petitioner wants to prove the same by way of additional evidence. A further perusal of written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner no where reveals that such a plea was ever raised by the defendant-petitioner and altogether a new case is made out at such a belated stage when the case is fixed for final arguments. It is not in dispute that the defendant-petitioner had already availed six opportunities from 22.10.2009 to 31.8.2010 for leading his evidence. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff/respondent has already examined Sh. R.V. Vasthista-Document and Finger Print Expert to prove the thumb impression of the defendant-petitioner on the alleged agreement and the defendant-petitioner has been afforded sufficient opportunities to cross examine the said expert. Thus the prayer of additional evidence as sought in this case being beyond pleading, in my opinion, has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court. If at all, it was necessary for the defendant-petitioner to examine the other Finger Print Expert in his evidence, he could have done so at the appropriate stage and thus such plea of the petitioner is not acceptable and liable to be rejected at such a belated stage. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (P.5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sunam below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 29, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE