Civil Revision No. 1606 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1606 of 2009 Date of decision: 24.03.2009. Paramjit Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla,Advocate for the petitioner. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for the recovery of certain amount on the basis of a pro-note and receipt which were averred by the defendant-petitioner, in the pleadings before the learned Trial Court, to be forged and fabricated. In that very context, the plea raised by the defendant-petitioner was that the alleged attesting witnesses of the impugned pro-note and receipt were close friends and relatives of the plaintiff-respondent who (alleged attesting witnesses) had never met her (defendant-petitioner) and were also not known to her, that they would also not be able to identify her, that she was a resident of Bathinda on the relevant date and that she had not visited village Sangatiwala on the day the impugned pro-note and receipt were alleged to have been executed. Though the essential onus to prove the affirmation was Civil Revision No. 1606 of 2009 -2- **** upon the plaintiff-respondent, the onus was upon the defendant- petitioner to prove that the impugned pro-note and receipt are forged, fabricated and without consideration. The defendant-petitioner entered the witness box, as her own witness, as DW-1 and made a statement supportive of the aforementioned issue, the onus whereof was upon her. The plaintiff- respondent examined PW-4 Ram Karan Singh in rebuttal thereof. At the time the witness aforementioned was produced, the defendant- petitioner filed an application to the effect that Ram Karan Singh aforementioned may not be allowed to be examined as the evidence proposed to be given by him constituted evidence of affirmative character. The plea was declined by the learned Trial Court. The defendant-petitioner is in revision. It is apparent from a perusal of the quoted pleadings of the parties that the defendant-petitioner had alleged that the attesting witnesses of the impugned pro-note and close friends and relatives of the plaintiff-petitioner, that she had never met them, that they were not known to her, that they could not identify her, that the impugned pro-note and receipt were without consideration, that she was residing at Bathinda on the relevant date and that she had not visited village Sangatiwala on that date. Qua the above points, the defendant-petitioner could have adduced the evidence under the below quoted issue :- “Whether the alleged pro-note and receipt are forged and Civil Revision No. 1606 of 2009 -3- **** fabricated document and without consideration? OPD The plaintiff-respondent was entitled to adduce the evidence in rebuttal of the above points. The petition is disposed of in limine with the observation that only that part of the statement of Ram Karan Singh would be read into evidence which is relate-able to the above points qua which the defendant-petitioner had testified at the trial in support of issue No.3. March 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge