Civil Revision No. 230 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 230 of 2010 Date of decision : 15.1.2010 Chandan Singh ....Petitioner Versus Mahender Singh ...Respondent **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. K.C.Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. S. D. ANAND, J. The present petition, filed by the petitioner-defendant to obtain invalidation of the order dated 30.9.32009 vide which his plea for the leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence was declined deserves to be negatived. The plea for additional evidence came to be filed after his evidence had already been closed under the orders of the 'Court. The order directing closure of his evidence has attained finality as it never ever came to be challenged till date. Apart therefrom, it requires pertinent notice that the proposed additional evidence is thoroughly contradictory to the plea raised by the defendant- petitioner at the trial. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for a permanent injunction, and also specific performance of agreement dated 19.9.2002. The petitioner herein had entered into an Civil Revision No. 230 of 2010 -2- **** agreement to sell 10 kanals 19 marlas of land to the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.4,25,000/-. A sum of Rs.3,80,000/- was paid as an earnest amount. It was agreed that the sale deed shall be executed and get registered on 19.12.2002. That date later on got extended upto 19.2.2003 and, thereafter, to 5.5.2003. On that date, the respondent appeared before the Sub Registrar but the defendant-petitioner herein did not enter appearance before the Sub Registrar on that date. In the course of the written statement, the petitioner averred that the averred agreement was all a farcical affair and was a result of fraud. The petitioner, by means of the impugned plea for additional evidence, wants to summon the scribe of the impugned agreement. This scribe had already been examined as a witness for the party opposite and he was subjected to cross- examination on behalf of the petitioner herein. In view of the specific plea of fraud taken up by the petitioner herein at the trial, it is fairly illogical for him to ask for the summoning of the scribe who has already been examined as a witness for the party opposite. Examined from every angle, the impugned order cannot be faulted on any valid score. The petition is held to be devoid of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 15, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE