Civil Revision No. 6125 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6125 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Kewal Singh .....Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Kaur ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.S. Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 27.8.2010, whereby it has been held that the plaintiff is entitled to lead rebuttal evidence in respect of issue No. 9, the onus to prove of which was on the defendant. In a suit for declaration claiming ½ share of the estate of Gurbachan Singh by way of natural succession, the defendant- petitioner relied upon the Will dated 31.3.2004. The learned trial Court framed issue No. 9, which reads to the following effect:- “Whether Gurbachan Singh executed Will dated 31.3.2004 in favour of defendant? OPD Civil Revision No. 6125 of 2010 (O&M) [2] The plaintiff closed his evidence, except for producing documentary evidence on 24.3.2008. Subsequently, the defendant also closed his evidence on 14.11.2009. It is the case of the petitioner that that the plaintiff has not reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal in terms of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead rebuttal evidence on issue No. 9, the onus of which was on the defendant. Learned trial Court considered the aforesaid argument and found that the plaintiff has a right to lead rebuttal evidence with regard to issue No. 9. Learned counsel or the petitioner has referred to the interim order passed by the Court on 24.3.2008, which is to the following effect:- “Today counsel for plaintiff closed oral evidence of plaintiff except documents. Now, to come up on 16.4.2008 for documentary evidence of plaintiff. This shall be last opportunity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) PLR 552, to contend that in terms of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff was required to reserve his right to lead evidence in affirmative and it is only then the plaintiff would be entitled to lead rebuttal evidence in respect of an issue, to onus of which was on the defendant. I do not find any merit in the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The above said order is not indicative of the fact that the plaintiff has waived his right to lead rebuttal evidence on issue No. 9. Since onus to prove such issue was on the defendant, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.3.2008 is indicative of the Civil Revision No. 6125 of 2010 (O&M) [3] closure of the evidence in respect of the issues, the onus of which was on the plaintiff. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22.9.2010 ds