CR No. 2760 of 2010 (O&M) :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 2760 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.4.2010 Jagtaran Singh .........Petitioner vs Charan Singh ........Respondent CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: - Mr. R.S. Modi, Advocate for the petitioner .......... 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) .......... This petition has been filed against an order dismissing the application of the petitioner for additional evidence. The respondent had filed a suit for recovery on the basis of a pronote and receipt. In the written statement, the petitioner took the plea that he had not signed the pronote and the receipt and the same was a forgery. After the respondent led his evidence, the petitioner led his evidence and by statement dated 4.2.2010, he closed his evidence. It is thereafter that he moved this application for additional evidence for (i) recalling of PW2 for further cross- examination, and (ii) permission to produce hand-writing expert. The learned Trial Court rejected this application stating that no case has been made out for additional evidence. In C.R No.2181 of 2010, M/S Ajay Trading Company vs M/S Karan Beej Bhandar, decided on April 08, 2010, this Court CR No. 2760 of 2010 (O&M) :2: held as follows :- “...... Learned counsel has stated that the application is necessary for the just decision of the case. I am afraid this argument by itself cannot come to the aid of a litigant who has not exercised due care and caution. Order 18 rule 17-A CPC as it originally stood provide stringent conditions whereunder an application for additional evidence would be allowed. The said section was deleted so as to avoid unnecessary delay and not to grant a carte-blanche to litigants to move an application for additional evidence at any time without any explanation.....” The only reason advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and was not properly advised by the counsel at the right time. This plea is not available to a person who is professionally advised. The reason for this is that otherwise, such an argument can be raised in every case. Consequently, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE 28.4.2010 preeti