Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakhshish Singh @ Bakhshi vs Tara Singh on 27 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: (1990)98PLR614
Author: Ashok Bhan
Bench: Ashok Bhan
JUDGMENT Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff against the order of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Nawanshahr, dated 23rd October, 1989, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff to lead additional evidence.
2. The ground taken by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence was that the defendant had denied his signatures on the pronote and the receipt as well as on the endorsement on the same along with thumb impression. The plaintiff's case was that he was not aware of the fact that the defendant would deny his signatures on the document and now that the defendant had denied his signatures, the plaintiff wants to get the comparison of the signatures of the defendant from the hand writing expert for proving the signatures of the defendant already taken in court, i.e., where his statement was signed in court with the disputed signatures. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the defendant had taken this stand in the written statement as well and it was not for the first time in his evidence in the court that ha had denied the fact regarding his signatures on the disputed document. Thus, this stand was taken by the defendant fight from the beginning, i.e., from the filing of the written statement, and that the plaintiff was not taken by surprise about the denial of the signatures by the defendant on the pronote and the receipt.
3. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that he may be permitted to lead additional evidence on payment of costs and that the same should be allowed in the larger interest to do justice between the parties.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that even if he was negligent in leading the evidence earlier, he should be permitted to do so subject to payment of heavy costs. The case pleaded by the respondent, on the other hand, is that the plaintiff is trying to delay the matter and he should not be permitted to bad the additional evidence.
5. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner does not stand to gain by delaying the matter, as it is his suit for recovery of money. There is no doubt that he has been negligent in leading the evidence in the affirmative which he wants to produce now but all the same. I think it would meet the ends of justice if he is given one more opportunity to lead the evidence prayed for to disprove the stand taken by the defendant regarding his signatures on the pronote and the receipt. Thus, I allow the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to lead the additional evidence subject to payment of Rs. 1,000/- as costs.
6. It is further directed that the defendant/respondent shall be given adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff/ appellant.
7. In the result, the impuged order is set aside with the above directions.
8. The parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the trial court on 24.9.1990.