IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5793 of 2010 Date of decision:- 14.10.2010 Raghbir Singh ......petitioner vs. Pavittar Singh ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harmanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H. S. Saggu, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order dated 18.8.2010 passed by learned trial Court whereby the plaintiff has been permitted to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal to issue No. 2. Plaintiff-respondent has filed the suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt. The defendant-petitioner alleged the said pronote to be forged and fabricated document. On the respective pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- from the plaintiff and executed pronote and receipt dated 25.11.2005? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate and to what extent? OPP 4. Whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated document and without consideration? OPP 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPP 7. Relief. Earlier the plaintiff examined the witnesses to prove the pronote dated 26.11.2005. The defendant to rebut the said evidence and also in support of issue No. 4 examined a hand writing expert and finger print expert. Though, the request of the petitioner for examining Government Finger Print Expert was declined. Subsequently, the plaintiff sought to examine the handwriting expert as a rebuttal evidence on issue No. 4. It appears that it has been wrongly mentioned as issue No. 2 by learned trial Court. It is the said request of the plaintiff which has been accepted by learned trial Court in the order impugned in the present revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence so as to examine hand writing and finger print experts as the onus to prove the due execution of pronote and receipt was on the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sardara Singh vs. Baljit Singh in Civil Revision No. 5604 of 2007 decided on 10.8.2009. It may be noticed that the plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative and reserved his right to rebut the evidence led by defendant on issue No. 2. It appears that issue No. 2 is wrongly mentioned as the onus of proof of issue No. 4 was of the defendant and not that of issue No. 2. Once, the trial Court has framed the issues in respect of the pronote and receipt being forged and fabricated and onus of proof was placed on the defendant, the plaintiff gets a right to lead rebuttal evidence on such issue. In the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh and others vs. Jagtar Singh and other, AIR 2007 Punjab 1, it has been held that if plaintiff closes his evidence in affirmative such plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal, the onus of which was on the defendant. The judgment of this Court in Sardara Singh's case (supra) is not helpful to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as it could not be pointed out that there was any issue in respect of agreement in question in the aforesaid case as forged and fabricated as is the issue No. 4 in the present case, the onus of which was on the defendant. I do not find that the said judgment is of any help to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the revision stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 14.10.2010 preeti