Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 29.09.2011 Sanjeev Sharma .... Petitioner Versus Seema ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.24005 & 24006-CII of 2011 These are the applications for seeking permission to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-5 and for exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4. Miscellaneous applications are allowed. Annexures P-1 to P-5 are taken on record and the petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-4. CR No.6031 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by Sanjeev Sharma, the husband, under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby learned Additional District Judge, Panipat has dismissed his application for permission to lead additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011 --2-- In the application filed by Sanjeev Sharma, he had claimed that the respondent was suffering from mental disorder before his marriage with her and she continued to suffer from the said ailment at the time of marriage and even thereafter. According to him, this fact was concealed by the family of the respondent. He has claimed that he has already closed his evidence, in which he has produced two doctors from Rohtak to prove the mental illness of the respondent. The petitioner, thereafter came to know that even earlier to her marriage with him, she had remained admitted at Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Panipat from 13.09.2003 to 16.09.2003. She had left the hospital against medical advice. He came to know about this fact only a few days before filing of the application and he made a search for the documents and after obtaining photocopy of the admission/discharge card, he has filed the application. According to him, he was not in the knowledge of this evidence and so he could not produce the same when he was leading his evidence. Therefore, Dr.Ankur Singhal was prayed to be summoned with the relevant record of Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Panipat. The application was opposed by the respondent claiming that the same was not maintainable at the belated stage. It was also claimed that the petitioner is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the application. It was mentioned that the application had been drafted on 28.02.2011 but the same has been filed in the court on 18.08.2011 without explaining as to why the application was not filed immediately. Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011 --3-- The remaining averments made in the application have been denied. It is claimed that the petitioner did not mention the date, month or year of his coming to know of the aforesaid evidence. The respondent has denied having ever remained admitted at Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Panipat. It is claimed that father of the petitioner is employed in District Courts Panipat for the last more than 25 years and he is a resourceful person, who could manipulate the record of the hospital and could get forged admission record. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Panipat, has dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiff has brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the application for additional evidence has been dismissed for reasons not germane to the law relating to the leading of additional evidence. According to him, learned Additional District Judge,Panipat has commented upon the record as being of private hospital and it would be difficult to rely upon the same after a lapse of seven years. He has, therefore, submitted that the application has been dismissed for the reason that the Additional District Judge has found it unsafe to allow the application at this belated stage. Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011 --4-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the evidentiary value or genuineness of the document could be proved by the petitioner only when he would be permitted to lead additional evidence regarding the same. According to him, the other side would be given adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witness sought to be produced by the petitioner as also to lead rebuttal evidence thereof. He has submitted that the delay in making the application was on account of the fact that when this application was drafted, the respondent was leading her evidence and the same was filed after her evidence has been over. Reliability of a document and unsafeness of allowing application at belated stage are not the considerations to be weighed while deciding the application for additional evidence. The petitioner has categorically claimed that he came to know of the record of Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital after he concluded his evidence. Such type of documents are not in public domain and it cannot be said that everyone would have knowledge of the same. Though, the petitioner has not mentioned in the application as to how he came to know about this evidence, yet the failure on the part of the petitioner would not be a ground to infer that the evidence sought to be led is not genuine. The genuineness of the document and reliability thereof has to be tested by the court after the evidence is taken. It is preposterous to say that the document is not genuine and is unreliable without even allowing it to be proved on the record. Civil Revision No. 6031 of 2011 --5-- When the fact that the plaintiff cannot be disbelieved in his submission that he did not know about this evidence and the evidence is relevant to the facts in controversy, the evidence should have been permitted to be brought on record. The other party could be compensated with costs. Learned trial court in not doing so, has erred in law. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 14.09.2011 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to lead additional evidence in question for which learned trial court would give him one clear opportunity. He would be given dasti summons of the witness as well. For this opportunity, the petitioner shall be burdened with Rs.10,000/- as costs, payable to the other side. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 29.09.2011 dinesh