Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - The petitioner-wife is against the order dated 04.07.2014 by which application filed by the respondent-husband for leading additional evidence has been allowed.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent had mentioned the name of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in his list of witnesses when he started his evidence, but he did not choose to examine him and closed the evidence himself. Thereafter, the petitioner-wife also closed her evidence and when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, the respondent-husband moved two applications; one for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal evidence and another by way of additional evidence. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal evidence, but allowed to examine him by way of additional evidence.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the application for leading additional evidence because the respondent-husband had already given the name of the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in his list of witnesses and could have examined him while leading his evidence in affirmative. Since he did not choose to examine him at that stage, therefore, he has lost his right to examine him by way of leading additional evidence.

4. The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner no doubt appears to be attractive but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I have found that the need to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert arose when the petitioner-wife was leading her evidence and at that time the application form was put to her in her cross-examination on which she denied her signatures. In this circumstance, the respondent-husband had to file an application to rebut the denial on the part of the petitioner-wife about her signatures on the application form by examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert which has been rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court.

5. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

---------0.B.S.0------------

—————————