Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 Date of decision. 31.08.2009 Ajinder Pal Singh s/o S. Nachhatar Singh Thind (Advocate) s/o Heera Singh, r/o Green Avenue, Chahal Road, Faridkot. ....... Petitioner Versus Parvinder Pal Kaur wife of Ajinder Pal Singh, d/o Jagjit Singh alias Bagga Singh s/o Lal Singh, r/o village Bangi Deepa Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. ... respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr.Ashok Singla,Advocate for the petitioner. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Moga, vide Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --2-- which it partly declined the application for examining the expert witness, and partly allowed the same for tendering the documents, mentioned therein, by way of additional evidence. 2. A petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce, was filed by Ajinder Pal Singh, petitioner(now revision-petitioner). During the pendency thereof, he moved an application for additional evidence, wherein it was stated by him that an affidavit was produced by the respondent in defence evidence. It was further stated that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to rebut this evidence and documents, which were produced on record by the respondent. It was further stated that the additional evidence, to rebut the evidence, led by the respondent, in respect of the affidavit, was necessary. It was also stated that the certified copy of the order dated 05.08.2008, passed by the Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --3-- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, order dated 21.11.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot, in civil suit, the certified copy of the joint statement dated 06.11.2007 and the certified copies of the petition bearing No.M-7610, filed before this Court and another petition bearing No. M-13268 be allowed to be tendered into evidence. 3. This application was opposed by the respondent, on the ground, that the same was not maintainable. It was stated that the petitioner availed of a number of opportunities to conclude his evidence. It was further stated that the petitioner closed his evidence. It was further stated that the petitioner failed to explain why the documents, which were sought to be produced by way of additional evidence, were not produced earlier or that he was not aware of the same. It was further stated that the respondent led evidence that the car was purchased by her father, Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --4-- for giving it, to the petitioner, in the marriage. It was further stated that the Expert witness could not be produced to rebut the affidavit, produced on the file, by the respondent. The remaining averments, contained in the application, were denied, being wrong. 4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the trial Court, partly accepted the application for additional evidence and partly dismissed the same, as stated above. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner/petitioner. 6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the revision- petitioner, submitted that the respondent was allowed to lead secondary evidence, in respect of the affidavit, subject to all Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --5-- just exceptions. He further submitted that this affidavit was never set up in the pleadings by the respondent. He further submitted that the respondent examined an expert, to prove the said affidavit. He further submitted that with a view to rebut the evidence, with regard to the affidavit, which was led by the respondent, the additional evidence, sought to be produced by the petitioner, was essential. He further submitted that the trial Court was, thus, wrong, in disallowing the application partly to the extent that the petitioner was not entitled to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprints Expert. It was further stated that the order impugned, to the extent aforesaid, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision- petition,deserves to be dismissed, for the Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --6-- reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The trial Court was right, in coming to the conclusion, that no doubt, it was prima facie established that affidavit dated 17.11.2004, was given by the father of the respondent, to transfer the vehicle, in the name of the petitioner, but this vehicle was never got transferred, in the name of the petitioner. The trial Court was also right in holding, that since the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the petitioner, as such, the affidavit was not acted upon, and the examination of expert witness sought for, by way of additional evidence, was not necessary. The trial Court, in my opinion, was also right in coming to the conclusion that the other evidence, already led by the parties, could be taken into consideration, for the purpose, as to what was the effect of the affidavit dated 17.11.2004, which was not acted upon. Even otherwise, the application for additional evidence was filed, when the Civil Revision No. 4913 of 2009 --7-- case was fixed for rebuttal evidence. The petitioner could only lead evidence, in rebuttal, on the issue the onus whereof lay on the respondent. The trial Court, thus, rightly declined the application partly regarding the examination of Expert witness by way of additional evidence. 9. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity and, therefore, does not warrant any interference, of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. August 31, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge