CR No. 3092 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 3092 of 2011 Date of Decision: 10.5.2011. Chander Kumar .......Petitioner Vs. Dharampal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Kulbhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell. Vide order dated 8.3.2011, the evidence of the defendants was closed. An application was moved by defendants No. 2 to 6 for permission to lead the additional evidence. Vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2011, the trial court has dismissed the application for permission to lead the additional evidence filed by defendants No. 2 to 6. Hence, the present petition by the defendant No.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by way of additional evidence, defendants want to examine a hand writing expert who shall give opinion qua the alleged thumb impressions of Ganga Ram on the agreement to sell in question after comparing it with his standard thumb impressions on gift deed and release deed. The said evidence was very necessary for the just decision of the case. In support of his argument, learned CR No. 3092 of 2011 -2- counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on 'Ram Dev and another versus Satbir Singh and others 1990 PLJ 521' wherein it was held that the courts should be disinclined to shut the evidence on technical considerations. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. The evidence of the defendants was closed vide order dated 8.3.2011. Thereafter, defendant No.6 filed a Civil Revision No. 2031 of 2011 seeking permission that she may be allowed to appear in the court for her cross examination. The said petition was allowed by this court vide order dated 23.3.2011 and one opportunity was granted to the defendants to examine defendant No.1 after 30.3.2011. The defendant No.6 in the said petition had not sought any permission to examine a hand writing expert. Thereafter, an application was moved by the defendants No. 2 to 6 on 9.4.2011 for permission to examine a hand writing expert. The defendants knew their case and should have lead evidence in support of their defence. However, the defendants failed to examine hand writing expert and the evidence of the defendants was closed by order as they had failed to conclude their evidence despite sufficient opportunities. In these circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly dismissed the application, filed by defendants No. 2 to 6. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed (SABINA) JUDGE May 10, 2011 Gurpreet