Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2011 Date of Decision: 19.07.2011 *** Sunil Verma & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Neealm Verma & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking permission to produce an expert witness, in rebuttal evidence, has been dismissed by dint of impugned order dated 30.5.2011. Heard. The dispute between the parties revolves around the Will dated 18.7.2001 alleged to have been executed by deceased Om Parkash Verma. During the course of their evidence, private respondents produced an expert, who allegedly compared the aforesaid document. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed the impugned application, seeking production of their expert. However, as noticed above, the said application has been dismissed. There is no dispute with the proposition of law that the plaintiff cannot presuppose and lead evidence at the initial stage in anticipation of evidence to be led by defendants especially when onus is on the defendant to prove that the Will is forged, but it is evident from the records that the plaintiffs, from the beginning, were aware of the defence taken by the private respondents to the effect that the aforesaid Will is a forged and fabricated document as the signatures appearing thereupon are not that of Late Om Parkash Verma. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs were required to Civil Revision No. 4314 of 2011 2 lead their entire evidence, including the expert witness to prove that in fact there were the signatures of Late Om Parkash Verma on the said disputed Will and as such the evidence which is now sought to be led in the form of expert witness, was required to be led at the initial stage while leading their evidence on issue No.1, the onus of which is on the plaintiffs. But they did not do so when their evidence was going on. Even otherwise it is not clear as to whether the plaintiffs reserved any right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the expert is to be produced by the plaintiffs in order to confront the report of expert produced by the defendants. However, it has come on record that the counsel for the plaintiffs with the assistance of their own expert, has cross-examined the expert. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) July 19, 2011 JUDGE Jiten