Civil Revision No. 2181 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2181 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 08 , 2010 M/s Ajay Trading Company ...... Petitioner Versus M/s Karan Beej Bhandar ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.U.K.Agnihotri , Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining the application of the petitioner to lead additional evidence. The petitioner has filed suit for recovery on the basis of a pronote. However, admittedly no evidence of the said pronote or receipt was produced and evidence of the petitioner was closed by counsel. Thereafter the respondent-defendant led his evidence. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, application was filed for leading additional evidence to the following effect:- “Sir, It is submitted as under:- 1. That the above noted suit is now fixed for today for rebuttal and arguments. Civil Revision No. 2181 of 2010(O&M) 2 2. That plaintiff wants to produce and wants to exhibit the documents which are on the judicial file but at the time of plaintiff's evidence the plaintiff could not exhibit these documents. Although the plaintiff has mentioned above documents in his affidavit in examination-in-chief. (i) Copy of legal notice dt. 9.9.2006 and postal receipt of the legal notice bearing No.1179 and the registered letter are necessary to be exhibited. (ii) That the above mentioned documents are on the judicial file which are very much necessary to decide the case in the interest of justice on merits. (iii) That plaintiff wants to produce Ramesh Kumar Arora,document Writer, Jind to prove the execution of pronote as Ex.P1 and receipt Ex.P2 along with agreement deed dated 24.12.2003. (iv) That plaintiff wants to produce theincome tax return pertaining to year 2003-04 and 2008-09. 3. That the handwriting expert is also necessary to be examined to compare the signature of Karan Singh on Ex.P1, P2 and P3. 4. That the above mentioned witness and documents are necessary for just proper and effective decision of the suit and hence the plaintiff is required to be permitted to adduce additional evidence. 5. That no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendant is the application is allowed. 6. An affidavit is attached. It is, therefore, prayed that the above mentioned documents and witnesses may kindly be allowed to be produced in the court by way of permitting the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence in the interest of justice.” This application was rejected by the trial ourt on the ground that even though after the deletion of Order 18 rule 17-A of the CPC the application for additional evidence was maintainable under Section 151 Civil Revision No. 2181 of 2010(O&M) 3 CPC yet the petitioner had given no plausible explanation why the evidence now sought to be led could not be produced at the relevant time. The trial Court held that the petitioner was a casual litigant who closed his evidence and moved the instant application at the fag end when the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments. 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. In the circumstances it cannot be said that the findings of the learned trial Court suffer from such material irregularity so as to render the same liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this petition is dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 08 , 2010 sunita