C.R.No.6715 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6715 of 2009 Date of Decision : 17.11.2009 Bhoop Singh ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Krishna and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.11.2009, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to examine hand-writing expert in evidence either in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence was declined. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 20.10.2005. In the said suit, the defendant denied the execution of the agreement and also stated that his signatures might have been obtained on the blank papers. One of the issue framed was whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the disputed property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2005 on the grounds as alleged in the plaint. To succeed on the said issue, the plaintiff was required to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell. The plaintiff moved the present application for permission to lead additional evidence or to lead evidence in rebuttal, but the same has been declined by the learned trial Court for the reason that the plaintiff was given ample opportunities to lead his evidence in affirmative, to C.R.No.6715 of 2009 2 prove the due execution of the agreement to sell. By filing the present application, the plaintiff wants to fill-up the lacuna in the evidence led in affirmative. It was found that no case is made out for permission to lead additional evidence as the defendant from the very beginning has denied the signatures on the alleged agreement to sell. The defendant has pleaded that the agreement is forged and fabricated, therefore, the onus was on the plaintiff to examine the hand-writing expert, while leading his evidence in affirmative. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted in any manner. The evidence of an expert was required to be produced by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was leading his evidence in affirmative. The defendant has denied the execution of the agreement in the written-statement. Therefore, the plaintiff was aware of the evidence required to be examined by him in support of his plea of due execution of the agreement. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to fill-up the lacuna by seeking permission to lead additional evidence or to lead evidence in rebuttal. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 17.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE