NATHU RAM PREM CHAND Vs. JAGROOP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order dated 25.07.2012, dismissing the application of the petitioner for examining one Ram Kumar as PW by way of additional evidence. It is alleged that the petitioner filed the suit for recovery on the basis of entries in the account books and during the pendency of the suit, he came across a judgment reported as Karnail Singh v. Ms Kalra Brothers, Sirsa, 2009 154 PunLR 693 wherein entries in the account books were disbelieved, inter alia, on account of non-examination of scribe, therefore, in order to avoid any such objection on behalf of the defendant, he sought permission to examine Ram Kumar, scribe of some entries in the account books. It is also alleged that the said judgment was not in the notice of the counsel for the petitioner who was of the opinion that Manoj Kumar PW1, partner of the firm, had seen Ram Kumar while making entries and identification of his handwriting was sufficient to prove the entries.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that the account books have already been produced on record as Ex. P1 to P28 in the statement of PW1 Manoj Kumar, partner of the firm, who has also made some of the entries and in whose presence Ram Kumar, Clerk/Muneem of the firm, has also made some entries but there was no cross-examination of Manoj Kumar in this regard and no objection was raised for non-examination of Ram Kumar. It is also submitted that the trial Court has erred in dismissing the application on the ground that since the plaintiff had himself closed its evidence, therefore, it cannot be allowed to examine Ram Kumar at the belated stage. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 AIR(SC)(Civ) 1000, it is contended that the Court can always allow a party to produce fresh evidence even when his evidence has already been closed and arguments were heard.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases of Punjab Kaur v. Gurcharan Singh, 1992 102 PunLR 141 and Aggarwal Cotton Waste Co. v. Shree Singhal Spinners Pvt. Ltd., 2004 2 RCR(Civ) 637. The aforesaid two judgments have been cited on the issue that additional evidence can be led at the stage of rebuttal evidence to advance the cause of justice especially when the documents are of the defendant and if there is any negligence, the evidence, which goes to the root of the case, cannot be dis-allowed and the other party can be compensated with costs.