C.R. No. 6185 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6185 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 Harnek Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Kewal Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. SPS Isher, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 11.6.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby an application filed by him seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been declined by the learned trial court. 2. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,60,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 25.7.2005. The defendant in the written statement alleged that the pronote and receipt was a result of manipulation and it was forged, fabricated and without consideration. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application seeking permission to lead additional evidence to bring mutation Nos.6441 and 6442 on record to C.R. No. 6185 of 2010 -2- show that the plaintiff had capacity to advance the payment to the defendant-respondent. Further, prayer was made to examine Handwriting and Finger Print Expert, Shri Navdeep Kumar Gupta, Nimarat Villa, Patiala to prove signatures of defendant on Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The said application was declined on the ground that the evidence which the plaintiff wanted to produce by way of additional evidence was very much available on the record at the time of leading evidence by the plaintiff in affirmative. The plaintiff had already availed of ample opportunities before concluding his evidence in affirmative on 11.12.2007. The relevant observations recorded by the trial court are as under:- “As far as plea taken by plaintiff that he intends to get the disputed signatures of the defendant over Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 compared with admitted signatures of the defendant, as this stage the plea taken by the plaintiff is not acceptable because documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 which bears the disputed signatures of the defendant and other documents i.e. summon dated 1.3.2006 issued for 7.3.2006, vakalatnama and reply dated 2.6.2006, were very much on record when plaintiff was leading evidence in affirmative. The onus to prove issue no.1 i.e. whether defendant took a cash loan of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on interest @ 1½% per month on 25.7.2005 and executed pronote and receipt in lieu thereof, has been placed on plaintiff. Plaintiff by availing repeated C.R. No. 6185 of 2010 -3- opportunities has concluded its evidence and plaintiff has already closed his evidence in affirmative on dated 12.11.2007. All the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff by way of additional evidence, would have been brought on record at the stage when plaintiff was leading evidence in affirmative. At this stage of rebuttal evidence plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in affirmative.” 3. Besides, the above observations of the trial court, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that mutation Nos. 6441 and 6442 which was sought to be produced by way of additional evidence had any relevancy on the basis of the pleadings of the parties or the issues framed in the suit. 4. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the order dated 11.6.2010 which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 16, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE