IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 355 of 2011 Date of decision : September 23, 2011 Naag Devta Sewa Samiti …Petitioner. Versus Sant Ram and ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against respondents/defendants. Respondents/defendants are contesting the suit. Ten issues, arising out of the pleadings, were framed. Onus of six issues was placed upon the petitioner/plaintiff and onus of remaining issues was placed upon the respondents/defendants. 3. Petitioner/plaintiff adduced evidence in support of the issues, onus of which was placed upon him. Thereafter, respondents/defendants adduced evidence, both to rebut evidence of the petitioner/plaintiff and also to prove issues, onus of which Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… was upon them. They examined 14 witnesses. Then, they moved an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, for comparison of some disputed signatures by an expert. Trial Court dismissed that application vide order, dated 2nd June, 2011, and while dismissing the application, it closed evidence of the respondents/defendants and listed the matter for arguments, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence to rebut defendants’ evidence, in respect of issues, onus of which was placed upon them. Petitioner/plaintiff then filed an application, seeking permission of the Court to lead rebuttal evidence. That application has been rejected vide order, dated 2nd September, 2011. Reasons given in the order are that the matter is an old one, petitioner/plaintiff did not point out at the time, when the order, dismissing the application of the respondents/defendants under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, was passed that he wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal and that on two subsequent dates also, he did not indicate that he wanted to lead rebuttal evidence. Reasons given by the trial court are not correct. 4. Simply for the reason that the matter is old, right of a party to adduce rebuttal evidence cannot be shut, especially, when such party is not to blame for delaying the production of evidence. Failure on the part of the petitioner/plaintiff to point out that there were some issues, onus of which was placed upon respondents/defendants, and he wanted to rebut such evidence of …3… the respondents/defendants, is also no ground to shut his right to lead rebuttal evidence, because it was for the trial court to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence, in rebuttal, even if there was no request for doing so. 4. In view of the above-stated position, present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and trial court is directed to afford at least one opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff to adduce evidence in rebuttal. 5. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 23, 2011 (Surjit Singh), J (pankaj)