CR No. 5136 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5136 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on :30-07-2010 Mrs. Punam Rani ....Petitioner VERSUS Pritam Lal ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Anil Shukla , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Rohit Ahuja, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.8.2009 by which the respondent was permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. The grievance of the petitioner stems from the facts that the issues which were framed and regarding which the rebuttal evidence is sought to be adduced by the respondent, the onus was on him to prove such issues but instead of leading evidence in the affirmative, the respondent wishes to examine an expert in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that facts of the case are peculiar in nature as he has preferred a suit for possession by way of specific performance regarding an agreement to sell in which he has paid the entire sale consideration and did not deny his signatures and has set up a plea of fraud and produced a witness during her testimony and it is for the purpose of off-setting the effect of such testimony CR No. 5136 of 2009 (O&M) 2 that the expert evidence is required. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on case titled as Jagdev Singh and others versus Darshan Singh and ors 2007(2) CCC 261 (P&H)(DB) whereas learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on cases titled as Kewal Singh versus Jagjit Singh 2007 (4) CCC 658 (P&H), Ranjit Singh vs. Mehfil Restraurant 2008 AIR P&H 104, Joginder Kaur versus Jaswant Singh 1998 (2) PLR 684 and Kashmir Kaur versus Bachan Kaur 2000(2) RCR (civil) 133 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Even though, it is principle of law that a person upon whom onus is cast to prove an issue is to lead evidence in affirmative, yet this thumb rule can be deviated from in the interest of justice when some evidence transpires during the course of recording of testimony of defendant. Ultimate object of the Court is to adjudicate correctly and not to resort to technicalities of law. Having regard to the above observations, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. July 30 , 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge