CRR-875-2009 (O&M) - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR-875-2009 (O&M) Date of decision:05.07.2011. Brij Bhushan Goel ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gurmail Singh Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, Asstt. A.G., Haryana. Mr. V.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 18.03.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal by which the application filed by the complainant/petitioner for leading additional evidence has been declined. After closure of the evidence by the prosecution, an application for leading additional evidence was filed by the complainant to produce affidavit of the accused Gurcharan Singh in which he had confessed the occurrence. The petitioner wanted to examine Suresh Kumar Sharma, Scribe of the affidavit dated 15.01.1995 and Clerk of Smt. Asha Bindlish, Notary Public with the relevant register of attestation of affidavit. The examination of these witnesses was found to be useless in view of the fact that occasion for swearing that affidavit has not been disclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Court below has committed an error in dismissing the application because from the said additional evidence he wanted to prove the execution of the affidavit. CRR-875-2009 (O&M) - 2 - ****** In reply, learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that in this case, the private complaint was filed on 05.05.1993 in which summoning was ordered on 08.09.1994. The charges were framed on 09.10.1999. The complainant closed his evidence on 18.03.2009 and statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 26.03.2009. The affidavit dated 15.01.1995 has never been part of the complaint and the application for additional evidence has been filed on 19.03.2009. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record from which I have found that the application for additional evidence has been filed solely with a view to prolong the litigation which is already 18 years old about which this Court had even directed in CRR-1418-1999 to conclude the trial within six months vide its order dated 04.08.2008. I do not find any relevance of the evidence which is sought to be produced by way of additional evidence and there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order. In view thereof, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being denuded of any merit. July 05, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE