C.R. No. 128 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 128 of 2008 Date of Decision: 27.09.2010 Hari Ram Naharia .... Petitioner Versus V.K. Sharma ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Present petition is filed challenging order dated 2.1.2008 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Bhiwani whereby an application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking permission for examination of the admitted signatures of the defendant with the signature of the defendant on the impugned documents i.e. Ex. P-1 to P-4 was rejected. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit way back in the year 1999 seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to issue shares to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint or alternatively to pay the value of the shares mentioned in the plaint. Written statement was filed and thereafter issues were framed. Both the parties have produced their evidence after closure C.R. No. 128 of 2008 2 of the evidence of the defendant. Plaintiff-petitioner has moved an application seeking permission from the trial Court to permit the plaintiff to examine the signatures on the impugned documents with the admitted signatures of the defendant. Learned trial Court has rejected the application by the impugned order. Undisputedly suit was field way back in the year 1999. Undisputedly in the written statement defendant has denied documents mentioned in the plaint. Undisputedly defendant has specifically denied his signatures thereon. Undisputedly during the evidence of the plaintiff and defendant, no permission was sought to examine the signatures of the defendant on the documents impugned herein with the admitted signatures. No right to lead evidence in rebuttal has been reserved by the plaintiff-petitioner. There is a difference between additional evidence and evidence in rebuttal. A party can be permitted to lead additional evidence if party seeking permission to lead additional evidence is able to satisfy the Court that despite of due diligence additional evidence was neither in his possession nor in his knowledge and could not be produced before closing of the evidence for the reasons beyond the control of the party. Additional evidence can also be permitted when Court requires it for the fair adjudication of the lis between the party. In the opinion of this Court in the present case plaintiff- petitioner fails to prove that despite of due diligence additional evidence sought to be placed was not in his knowledge and possession. Plaintiff further fails to prove that evidence sought to be produced could not be produced for the reasons beyond the control C.R. No. 128 of 2008 3 of the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court plaintiff could have called handwriting expert at the time when plaintiff was leading his evidence. None of the party should ordinarily be permitted to fill up the lacuna at the later stage of the suit. In my view learned trial Court was well within its jurisdiction while rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner, hence, no interference is called for. Dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 27.09.2010 JUDGE reena