Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 Date of Decision : September 17, 2008 Jang Singh .....Petitioner Versus Chhota Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. R.K. Battas, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. T.P.S. MANN, J. Jang Singh-petitioner, along with Jarnail Singh-respondent No. 3, filed a suit for declaration that they were owners in possession of 25/40 share out of agricultural land measuring 186 kanals 12 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Khetla, Tehsil Sunam, whereas Chhota Singh-respondent No. 1 was owner in possession of 25/80 share, while Surjit Kaur-respondent No. 2 owner in possession of 5/80 share and mutation No. 2786 by way of inheritance of Maroo Singh was not correct and liable to be cancelled. Both, Jang Singh and Jarnail Singh, also sought relief of permanent injunction so as to restrain Chhota Singh and Surjit Kaur-defendants from taking possession on the basis of the partition proceedings. After closing their evidence in affirmative on 12.10.1999, Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 -2- the plaintiffs moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., which application was, however, declined by the trial Court. On 23.5.2000, the defendants closed their evidence and the case was fixed for the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs. When the case was fixed for the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, they filed two applications, one for producing/tendering the various documents in the rebuttal evidence while the other for framing of additional issues. Both the applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 27.11.2007 by separate orders. The order passed on the first application has been challenged by Jang Singh-plaintiff by filing the present revision while the order on the second application by filing Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2007. As both the orders have been passed in the same suit, the two revisions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that though the earlier application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure for producing additional evidence stood dismissed yet at that time the defendants were yet to examine their evidence. Once the defendants have closed their evidence on 23.5.2000 and the case thereafter fixed for the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, they had every right of rebuttal, besides producing the documents in rebuttal evidence. Learned counsel for defendants/respondents No. 1 and 2 opposed the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff by submitting that the Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 -3- application had been filed by the plaintiffs with the sole aim of delaying the proceedings and, therefore, the documents could not be adduced in rebuttal evidence. Once the issues are framed, respective parties are required to lead their evidence on the issues, onus whereof is upon the particular party. While producing such an affirmative evidence, the concern party has to produce all the documents in support thereof. In the present case, the plaintiffs after leading their evidence in affirmative had filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 17-A of the Code so as to produce additional evidence. Their application was dismissed by the trial Court, which order was upheld right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In such a situation, the plaintiffs cannot be allowed to effect a back-door entry under the garb of tendering/producing those very documents, while leading rebuttal evidence, prayer regarding which documents was earlier declined by the Court after the completion of the affirmative evidence of the plaintiffs. However, at the same time, if one looks at the various issues framed in the case, issue No. 4 pertains to the objection of the defendants to the suit on the ground of limitation. Onus of this issue was put on the defendants. Once the defendants have led their evidence in affirmative, especially in respect of issue No. 4, the plaintiffs have the right to rebut the same by examining evidence and producing the necessary documents. In such a situation, the plaintiffs can be allowed to produce/tender the documents at the time of their evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the defendants on issue No. 4. Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 -4- As regards the prayer of the plaintiffs for framing of additional issues, it may be observed that the parties have already concluded their evidence in affirmative. The plaintiffs have already produced evidence on the issue for grant of injunction, besides the issue of staying the partition proceedings. They have already prayed for a decree of permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from taking the possession under the garb of the partition proceedings. Therefore, trial Court has rightly held that no prejudice was going to be caused to the plaintiffs on account of non-framing of a specific issue as regards the grant of permanent injunction. Resultantly, Civil Revision No. 6450 of 2007 is accepted by granting permission to the plaintiffs to tender only those documents upon which the question of limitation could be decided by the trial Court. In that direction, the plaintiffs be given only one opportunity. No other document can be produced/tendered by the plaintiffs on any other issue and for no other purpose. Civil Revision No. 6451 of 2007 is, however, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 17, 2008 JUDGE satish Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO