IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.194 of 2008. Decided on: September 15,2011. Jagdish Ram and others …….Petitioner/plaintiffs. Versus Braham Dass and others …….Respondent/defendants. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Present petition has been filed against the order, dated 9.1.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No.II, Amb, vide which he had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiffs for permission to bring on record the money order receipts, bank passbook etc. of Balak Ram. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. It is clear from the assertions made in the application that the petitioner/plaintiffs had prayed that his predecessor-in-interest Balak Ram used to sign only and never put his thumb impression and he used to sign in Hindi. However, as per the evidence led, the deceased had thumb marked the document and it was 2 alleged that due to his old age, he had thumb marked it. The dispute pertains to the question as to whether Balak Ram used to thumb mark the documents or used to sign and for that purpose in rebuttal, the permission has been sought to prove money order receipts, bank passbook etc. The evidence sought to be led appears to be relevant at this stage and, therefore, the application ought to have been allowed by the learned trial Court and the case is fixed for the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. In case an objection is taken by the defendants during the course of proceedings that the present evidence should have been led in affirmative and not in rebuttal, an opportunity shall be given to the defendants to rebut the evidence so led by the plaintiffs. 5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the plaintiffs are permitted to prove the documents for which short date shall be given keeping in view the fact that the case is pending since long and the defendants shall be permitted to lead evidence, if insisted upon at that time. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20.10.2011. The Registry is directed to send the records of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment forthwith so as to reach well before the date fixed, who shall proceed with the case and try to dispose of the same as early as possible. 6. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly. September 15, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.