C.R. No. 3702 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3702 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.09.2010 Jagtar Singh .... Petitioner Versus Nachhattar Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Defendant-petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 3.5.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Maler Kotla whereby plaintiff (respondent herein) was permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the defendant. 2. The brief facts of the present case inter alia are that plaintiff – respondent has filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,000/- alongwith interest thereon on the basis of pronote dated 15.9.2000 with the allegation that defendant has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff @ 2% per month interest and has executed pronote in lieu of the amount borrowed. 3. Defendant has filed his written statement stating in C.R. No. 3702 of 2010 2 paragraph No. 1 of the statement that Para No. 1 of the plaint is wrong and denied; the defendant never borrowed a sum of Rs, 1,50,000/- from plaintiff @ 2% per month interest on 15.9.2000; defendant never promised to return the same; defendant never executed a pronote and receipt pronote in favour of the plaintiff; the alleged pronote and receipt pronote dated 15.9.2000 is a forged and fictitious document. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties learned trial Court has framed following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff and executed an pronote and receipt, in lieu thereof? OPP. 2. Whether the pronote and receipt relied upon by the plaintiff are forged and fictitious documents ? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the pronote amount along with interest, as prayed for? OPPC. 4. Relief. 5. Plaintiff has produced his evidence on issue No. 1 and thereafter defendant has produced his evidence and in the evidence defendant has produced report of handwriting and finger print expert and examined him. Thereafter, plaintiff was directed to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the defendant on Issue No. 2. Feeling aggrieved from the order permitting the plaintiff to produce evidence in rebuttal dated 3.5.2010 defendant has approached this Court. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. C.R. No. 3702 of 2010 3 7. Undisputedly plaintiff case is banking upon the pronote and receipt pronote dated 15.9.2000 which is specifically denied by the defendant in the written statement. In the opinion of this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case only one issue arises to be decided i.e. as to whether defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- and executed pronote and receipt in lieu thereof. Issue No. 2 as to whether pronote and receip relied upon by the defendant are forged and fictitious is unnecessary. Issue No. 1 covers entire controversy between the parties. It seems that learned trial Court has break up pleading of the defendant in two paras. Infact defendant has pleaded in the written statement that he neither borrowed the money nor executed any pronote and pronote receipt and alleged pronote and pronote receipt are forged. There was absolutely no need to frame issue No. 2 and to place burden to prove Issue No. 2 on the defendant. 8. Order 14 Rule 5 C.P.C. reads as under:- 5. Power to amend and strike out issues:- (1) the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. 2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.” 9. From the perusal of Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, this Court finds that Court is competent before passing a decree either to C.R. No. 3702 of 2010 4 amend the issue or to frame additional issues or to strike out any unnecessary issue creating confusion in the trial of the case. Since Issue No. 2 was unnecessary formulated, hence, entire confusion arose. Issue No. 2 is hereby ordered to be strike out. 10. It seems that parties in the suit were well aware that plaintiff has to prove his case specifically alleged pronote and receipt pronote. Defendant can not be asked to lead evidence in negative to disprove the pronote and receipt pronote. There seems to be no necessity to permit the plaintiff to produce evidence in rebuttal. Plaintiff has to prove his case and entire burden is on the plaintiff to lead evidence in affirmative. 11. In view of the above, order impugned can not stand in the eyes of law. 12. Petition is allowed. Order impugned is hereby quashed. (ALOK SINGH) 16.09.2010 JUDGE reena