Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 Date of decision: 31.7. 2009 Vijay Kumar ......petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate. for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr.Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff Vijay Kumar filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 11.3.1994 purported to be executed by Karam Chand-defendants No.2 in favour of Ashok Kumar-defendant No.1 was illegal, null and void. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendants. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order on 10.11.1998. Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 2 However, this Court allowed Civil Revision No. 5942 of 1998 filed by the plaintiff and the plaintiff was allowed one opportunity to lead his evidence. Thereafter, the defendants concluded their evidence and the case was listed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. The defendants then filed an application for admission or denial of handwriting and signatures on writing dated 25.4.1993 or to give specimen writings and signatures so that these could be got compared. Vide the impugned order dated 15.6.2002, Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sangrur allowed the application and directed the plaintiff to give his specimen handwriting and signatures. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the conclusion of plaintiff's evidence, defendants closed their evidence on 20.2.2001 and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. After the close of rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the defendants on 29.10.2001. The onus to prove issue No.6 was on the defendants. Since they had already concluded their evidence, there was no occasion for allowing an opportunity to the defendants to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence to the defendants had been granted by the trial Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.9.2000. Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 3 The order dated 25.9.2000 passed in CM No.5942 of 1998, as reproduced in para No.6 of the grounds of revision, reads as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the impugned order dated 10.11.1998, in the interest of justice, the same is hereby set aside subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs and directions are given to Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Sangrur to give one and final opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence on the date which shall be fixed by the trial Court. If the witnesses are not brought or examined by the petitioner, directions are further given to the trial Court to close the evidence of the petitioner again by order. The defendantss shall have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.” A perusal of the other interim orders, reproduced in the grounds of revision, reveals that on 17.11.2000, in terms of the order of this Court, plaintiff deposited the cost and was granted one opportunity to lead his evidence on 15.12.2000. On the said adjourned date, plaintiff closed his evidence and the case was adjourned for defendants' evidence. After tendering certain documents in evidence, defendants closed their evidence on 20.2.2001 and the case was adjourned to 23.2.2001 for rebuttal Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 4 evidence. On 29.10.2001, the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff was closed as he had already availed four opportunities and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of the defendants to 26.11.2001, in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.9.2000. The question that requires consideration is as to whether this Court, vide order dated 25.9.2000, had granted any opportunity to the defendants to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff in rebuttal or even otherwise the trial Court could grant an opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence by way of rebuttal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this revision petition deserves to be allowed. Learned trial Court has mis-interpreted the order of this Court dated 25.9.2000. The plaintiff had challenged the order whereby his evidence was closed by order by filing Civil Revision Petition No.5942 of 1998. The said revision petition was allowed and the plaintiff was granted one opportunity to lead his evidence and thereafter, it was held that the defendants shall have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. A perusal of the interim orders reproduced in the petition reveals that the plaintiff closed his evidence on 15.12.2000 in terms of the order of this Court dated 25.9.2000 and thereafter, the defendants were given opportunity to lead their evidence and they closed their evidence on 20.2.2001 and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence. There was no occasion to grant opportunity to the defendants to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff Civil Revision No. 3930 of 2002 5 in rebuttal. By mis-interpreting the order of this Court, the opportunity has been granted to the defendants to lead evidence in rebuttal as no such direction was given by this Court. The direction given by this Court is only to the effect that after one opportunity was given to the plaintiff to lead his evidence, the defendants should also be given an opportunity to lead their evidence thereafter and the said opportunity has already been granted by the trial Court. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order 15.6.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sangrur is set aside. (SABINA) JUDGE July 31 , 2009 anita