Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010 Date of decision: 06.09.2010 Smt. Veena Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Trilok Chand and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff for leading additional evidence to compare the signatures, with the original sale deed, stands declined. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction/possession, to challenge the sale deed executed in favour of Trilok Chand. The onus of proving the sale deed to be forged and fabricated, was on the plaintiff. Instead of summoning the sale deed, from Trilok Chand, plaintiff got the signatures of the vendor compared from the certified copy of the sale deed, without moving an application for leading secondary evidence by issuing notice to the defendant/respondents to produce the original sale deed for the purpose of comparison of signatures by the handwriting expert. Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010 -2- After the defendant/respondent proved the sale deed, the plaintiff moved an application to examine the second handwriting expert to prove the signatures on the sale deed, to rebut the evidence of the expert examined by the defendant/respondents. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground, that the application was moved after three years of filing of the original sale deed by the defendant/respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Hans Raj Vs. Surinder Kaur and others, 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 377, Ram Singh Vs. Pirthi and others, 1996 PLJ 605 and Anokh Singh and others Vs. Gurbax Singh and others, 2001(1) PLJ 586 to contend that the impugned order cannot be sustained as this Court in Hans Raj Vs. Surinder Kaur and others (supra) has laid down that merely because there is delay or some lapse on the part of the petitioner or his counsel in not producing the documents at the initial stage, is not sufficient reason for dis-allowing the application for additional evidence, even after the deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. In Ram Singh Vs. Pirthi and others (supra), this Court held, that no party could be denied the right to examine any witness on the ground that this evidence the party could have adduced at the time when the party was adducing affirmative evidence or when the party had right to adduce rebuttal evidence, the evidence essential to determine the real controversy in the suit cannot be denied. In Anokh Singh and others Vs. Gurbax Singh and others (supra) this Court held, that additional evidence cannot be denied simply Civil Revision No. 5627 of 2010 -3- on the ground of delay, as the Court is not powerless to grant relief if the ends of justice and equity demand. On consideration, I find that none of these judgments have any applicability to the present case. It is not in dispute that the onus of proving the sale deed to be forged and fabricated, was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff/petitioners without seeking permission of the Court, got the certified copy proved. Though, in absence of an application for secondary evidence, certified copy could not be taken into consideration for proving the document. In any case, once there is evidence on record, of an expert in favour of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the evidence now to be produced was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff, rather the plaintiff had already examined the handwriting expert. In view of the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdev Singh and others Vs. Darshan Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 794, the party is not allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issue, the onus of which is on the party. The plaintiff/petitioners in the garb of exercise of power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot overcome the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 06, 2010 R.S.