CR No.1666 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.1666 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 06.08.2010 **** Bhure Lal . . . . Petitioner VS. Suraj Bhan and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.MukeshYadav, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mohindergarh by which an application filed by the plaintiff for examination of handwriting expert in rebuttal to prove the falsity or forgery in the agreement to sell has been allowed. In brief, Suraj Bhan field the suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 7.9.2000 in respect of land in dispute which was allegedly agreed to be sold by defendants/petitioners for a sum of Rs.80,000/- after receiving earnest money to the tune of Rs.40000/-. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: CR No.1666 of 2010 -2- “1. Whether the defendant has entered into an agreement to sell dated 7.9.2000 with the plaintiff if so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and is entitled to specific performance of the contract? OPP 3. If issue No.2 is not proved whether the plaintiff is entitled to alternative relief in the form of damages? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 7. Relief.” The plaintiff closed his evidence on 17.8.2005. On 11.2.2010, plaintiff filed an application in which it was alleged that “that in the above noted case defendant have stated excess thumb impressions on the agreement to sell Ex.PW-1/A and have stated the agreement forged. While plaintiff have stated the agreement to sell correct. For producing the correct fact before the Hon’ble Court the finger print expert is necessary to examine as witness and permission of producing the handwriting and finger print expert in the evidence is necessary”. The defendant contested the application by filing reply dated 16.2.2010. However, learned trial Court vide its impugned order allowed the application on 22.2.2010 by observing thus: - CR No.1666 of 2010 -3- “In the present case, if application filed by plaintiff is allowed, it would assist the court in arriving at right conclusion. It would further clarify the basic stand of plaintiff whether he is replying upon false and fabricated document or Ex.PW1/A is a genuine document over which due to lack of knowledge thumb impressions were got affixed by scribe after making writing at the first instance. The facts of the case referred by counsel for respondents are quite distinguishable to the facts of the present case. For serving the interest of justice and reaching at right and accurate conclusion, for the foregone reasons I allow the present application filed by plaintiff. Accordingly, application filed by plaintiff for bringing expert report regarding Ex.PW1/A is allowed. Application is disposed off accordingly. Now case is fixed for 10.3.2010 for submitting expert report. Long date is not possible because this case falls from the list of 200 cases for which Hon’ble High Court has given strict direction to dispose of those cases within stipulated period. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the defendants have come up in revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently CR No.1666 of 2010 -4- argued that after the closing of evidence vide order dated 17.8.2005 by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed by the learned trial Court to lead rebuttal evidence on the issues which were to be proved by the plaintiff himself. In this regard, he relied upon Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of “Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and other” 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537 and Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of “Ram Rattan Vs. Anand Pandit & Ors.” 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 696, “Sarwan Singh Vs. Gram Panchayat Village Sarhal Mundi and others” 2009(3) PLR 489 and “Chhida Ram and others Vs. Rishi Raj and another” 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 672. The ratio of all the aforesaid judgments is the same that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues for which burden to prove was upon him. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by learned counsel for the respondents. The law is well settled that a party cannot lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues which are to be proved by him. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is found to be meritorious and as such the same is hereby allowed and impugned order is set aside, though, without any order as to costs. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 06.08.2010 JUDGE Vivek