CR No. 2672 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2672 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.5.2009 M/s Hero Cycles Ltd. .. Petitioner v. Ramesh Chander and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of amount for supply of material against the respondents, in which after the entire evidence of the parties was complete and the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, application for leading additional evidence was filed seeking permission to produce an official from the bank of which the respondents had allegedly issued a cheque to the petitioner as part payment of the amount due on account of supply of material. The same having been rejected, the petitioner- plaintiff is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in case one opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, it will produce the evidence from the bank of which the respondents had issued a cheque to the petitioner for part payment of the amount due. In fact, the original of the cheque was lost and photo copy thereof has already been produced on record by the petitioner. However, the same is required to be proved from the banker of the respondents only. In the absence thereof, the petitioner will suffer prejudice. The respondents can very well be compensated with costs. He further submitted that it is a suit filed by the petitioner and he is not interested in delaying the same. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Admittedly, it is a suit which was filed way back in CR No. 2672 of 2009 [2] the year 1996 for recovery. From the very initial stage, the petitioner-plaintiff knew about the cheque having been issued by the respondents and the same having been returned uncleared by his banker. Even the loss of cheque was also prior to the period when the petitioner-plaintiff led its evidence. Meaning thereby that the entire facts were well within the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff when the evidence of the plaintiff was being led. Application for leading additional evidence was filed after the respondents-defendants had completed their evidence. Having noticed lacuna in the evidence already led by the petitioner-plaintiff, application for leading additional evidence was filed which at that stage, in my opinion, cannot be permitted, considering the fact that the petitioner-plaintiff in the present case was not an illiterate person. It is a corporate entity which is guided by legal advisors. It was well aware of the quality of evidence, which was required to be led by it to prove their case and not to rely upon the evidence led by the defendants and see if there is lacuna in the evidence led by it and then fill in the same by leading additional evidence. Considering the aforesaid facts, I do not find any justification to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to lead additional evidence. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 12.5.2009 mk