Civil Revision No. 4654 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4654 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.08.2009. Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner Versus Jagwinder Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 19170-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant appellant is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-2 and is permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 4654 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gidderbaha, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/respondent, directing the defendant/petitioner to give specimen signatures and writing for examining the expert, stands allowed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery, which was contested, and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - “i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount alongwith the interest as prayed for? OPP Civil Revision No. 4654 of 2009 (O&M) -2- ii) Whether the pronote and receipt dated 18.11.2003 are forged and fabricated and without consideration? OPD iii) Whether the plaintiff is a money lender without a valid licence? OPD iv) Relief?” The plaintiff led evidence in affirmative on issue No. 1, whereas issues No. 2 and 3 defendant/petitioner led evidence and examined hand writing expert, in support of his contention that the pronote and receipt were forged and fabricated documents and were without consideration. After the close of the evidence by the defendant/petitioner, an application was moved by the plaintiff/respondent for directing the petitioner herein to give his specimen signatures and hand writing so as to enable the plaintiff/respondent to examine an expert to controvert the evidence led by the petitioner. As observed above, the said application has been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and other, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537, contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as it was for the plaintiff/respondent to have led evidence in affirmative on issue No. 1 and, therefore, he could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal and examine hand writing expert, having failed to do so while he was leading evidence in affirmative. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends, that the pronote having not hand-written, there is no necessity to give hand writing and signatures. Civil Revision No. 4654 of 2009 (O&M) -3- On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and other (supra) decided that plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue, the onus of which was on the plaintiff. However, in the present case, the plaintiff/respondent is leading evidence in rebuttal on the issue, the onus of which was on the defendant/petitioner, therefore, the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has no application to the facts of the present case. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 19, 2009 R.S.