Civil Revision No. 4966 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4966 of 2007 Date of decision: 21.05.2009. Malkiat Singh Petitioner Versus Jeet Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the impugned order invalidly allowed the plaintiffs-respondents to adduce rebuttal evidence in the statement of hand writing expert. The averment in the context is that though the evidence allowed to be adduced in rebuttal is actually of affirmative character which had to be compulsively adduced by the plaintiffs-respondents in affirmative evidence. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed a suit for a declaration qua their possessory title qua the suit land. In the alternative, a relief for joint possession was applied for. The averment was that the defendants ( including the petitioner before Civil Revision No. 4966 of 2007 -2- **** this Court) claimed to have acquired title to the land in suit on the basis of a civil court decree purporting to have been conceded in their favour by the plaintiffs-respondents. The allegation was that the plaintiffs-respondents had never ever appeared in the Court nor had they conceded grant of any decree in favour of the defendants aforementioned. The plea, thus, was that somebody else impersonated them. In the written statement, the defendants no.1 to 32 therein averred the validity of the impugned judgment and decree and also the sale deed dated 31.8.1995 and 9.3.1959 which was effected thereafter for consideration. On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court had framed the following issues:- a) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration as prayed?OPP b) Whether plaintiff is entitled to alternative decree for joint possession?OPP c) Whether suit is barred by principle of resjudicata?OPD d) Relief” It would, thus, be apparent that the plaintiffs-respondents had to adduce evidence to prove invalidity of the impugned decree in order to succeed under Issues No. 1 and 2. For that purpose, they were obviously required to prove that it is not their signatures/thumb impressions which appear in the proceedings of the relevant civil suit. Civil Revision No. 4966 of 2007 -3- **** The adducing of that evidence would have enabled them to prove that somebody else impersonated them at the trial. That evidence had to be compulsively adduced by the plaintiffs-respondents in affirmative. It is that part of the evidence which had to be rebutted by the contesting defendants. By the very nature of things, the best way for the plaintiffs-respondents to prove invalidity of the impugned judgment and decree was to examine a hand writing expert who could, on the basis of the comparison, testify that the signatures/thumb impression on the counter filed in the alleged collusive suit and the statements made by the defendants therein were not that of the plaintiffs/respondents. It is, thus, apparent that the learned Trial Court had inappropriately allowed the plaintiffs/respondents to examine the hand writing expert in rebuttal. The expert had to be examined in affirmative. The comparison-related testimony of the expert would have found the foundational premise of the case set up by the plaintiffs-respondents. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. May 21, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge