IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 671 of 2009 Mr. Sikandar Parvez S/o Late Sri Anwar-Ul-Haq, R/o 230 Rajpur Road, Dehr;ladun, District - Dehradun. ………. Petitioner Versus (1) Mrs. Razia Parvez W/o Late Sri Gulshan Parvez, R/o Postangsvagen 104, 14552 Norsborg Sweden, (2) Mr.Yusaf Parvez S/o Late Sri Gulshan Parvez, R/o Ostliveien 52A, 1800 Askin Norway, (3) Ms.Momina Sara Parvez D/o Late Sri Gulshan Parvez, R/o Postangsvagen 104, 14552 Norsborg Sweden ……… Respondents ………………… Ms.Prabha Noliyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rahul Consul, learned counsel for the respondents. Date: May 07, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 23.04.2009 passed by Third Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, whereby the application (No.125A) moved by defendant No.1 (respondent No.1 herein) in Original Suit No. 357 of 2006, Razia Parvez and others versus Sikandar Parvez and another was allowed. 2. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the respondents filed a suit bearing No. 357 of 2006 before the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dehradun for partition in the property. The defendant/petitioner filed written statement and on the basis of pleadings of the parties, as many as seven issues were framed by the trial court. The plaintiff/respondents also filed replication in the matter. 2 An application 39C was moved by the respondents for getting the documents (paper Nos. 31A & 26C) verified from hand writing expert and the said application No.39C was rejected on 05.05.2008 on the ground that the application for verifying the document is at premature stage. The plaintiff/respondents again moved an application (No.125A) stating that the defendants/petitioner have filed documents (paper Nos.31A and 26C) in collusion to each other and the said documents are forged and fabricated and they do not bear the signatures of late Gulshan Parvez (husband of respondent No.1). The said application (No.125A) moved by the plaintiff was allowed by the trial court by the impugned order and permitted the hand writing expert to take photographs from the decided records. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.04.2009, the defendant No.1 has come up with this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is bad in law because there is no such provision as also there is no relevancy of the order as the present parties are neither the parties nor the property in dispute have any link in the said cases which have been summoned by the impugned order dated 23.04.2009. 4. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order was passed on the application (No.125A) moved by the plaintiff/respondent whereby right of rebuttal of evidence on issue Nos. 2,3, 4, 5 & 6 has been reserved on the ground that burden of proof lies on the defendants. Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides as under:- “3 (1) Where there are several issues the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either state his case in the manner aforesaid and produce his evidence on those issues or reserve the statement of his case and the production of his evidence on 3 those issues by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may state his case in the manner aforesaid and produce his evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence. (2) After both parties have produced their evidence, the party beginning may address the Court on the whole case; the other party may then address the Court on the whole case; and the party beginning may reply generally on the whole case, provided that in doing so he shall not, without the leave of the Court, raise questions which should have been raised in the opening address.” 5. It is not disputed that plaintiffs’ earlier application for obtaining expert opinion had been rejected by the trial court on 05.05.2008 on the ground that it was premature. Thereafter the issues have been framed in the case and the date had been fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs. In view of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3 of C.P.C., plaintiff has reserved a right to give evidence in rebuttal. The trial court has committed no mistake in allowing the application (No.1255A) moved by the plaintiffs. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. 6. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (B.S.Verma,J.) 07.05.2009 P.Singh