IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7419 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: March 30, 2011. Paramjit Kaur. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Parshotam Kumar. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. L.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Mansa, District Mansa vide which application of petitioner-defendant for disallowing the respondent-plaintiff for examining the handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence of petitioner-plaintiff, was dismissed and the petitioner- plaintiff was allowed to lead rebuttal evidence by framing additional issues. CR No.7419 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for specific performance of contract was filed by respondent- plaintiff against the present petitioner-defendant in pursuance to agreement to sell dated 18.11.2003 allegedly executed by present petitioner in favour of respondent-plaintiff regarding the property in dispute duly described in the heading of the plaint. Suit was contested by respondent-defendant. Issues were framed by learned trial Court. Evidence was also adduced by both the parties. Case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, when an application filed by respondent-plaintiff for permission to get the record inspected from handwriting and fingerprint expert, was allowed by learned trial Court. Record was inspected by handwriting and fingerprint expert and the case was adjourned for evidence of handwriting and fingerprint expert. However, before examination of handwriting and fingerprint expert could be started, an application was filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff raising objection that the witness could not be examined in rebuttal evidence as onus to prove the issue was on the respondent-plaintiff and that he could examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in his affirmative evidence. Application was opposed by respondent-plaintiff. Learned trial Court from pleadings of the parties framed additional issues No.6-A to 6-E. However, without granting further opportunity to respondent-plaintiff to lead evidence, petitioner-defendant was directed to cross-examine handwriting and fingerprint expert, who was already examined thereby dismissing application of petitioner-defendant. 2 CR No.7419 of 2010 It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant that dispute is regarding execution of agreement to sell and that the same has been denied by petitioner-defendant. Hence, it is contended that it was for the respondent-plaintiff to prove due execution of the said agreement by leading evidence in the affirmative and that respondent-plaintiff should have examined the handwriting and fingerprint expert in affirmative evidence and that he is having no right to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. He has also placed reliance upon judgments rendered by this Court in Jagdev Singh and others v. Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) RCR(Civil) 794 and Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 0115. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff that though initially onus to prove execution of agreement to sell was on the plaintiff and that however, a specific plea of fraud was taken by petitioner-defendant in his written statement and that hence, it was for the petitioner-defendant to prove the said plea that agreement to sell is a forged and fabricated document and that hence, additional issues were framed by learned trial Court. He has further contended that learned trial Court is empowered to frame additional issues at any stage and that hence, additional issues were framed and respondent plaintiff is having right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. He has also contended that moreover documents have already been inspected by the handwriting and fingerprint expert and examination-in-chief was also recorded and that he only remained to be cross-examined on behalf of petitioner-defendant. Hence, it is contended that no prejudice is going to be 3 CR No.7419 of 2010 caused to petitioner-defendant if the witness is allowed to be cross-examined so that his statement be read in evidence. He has also placed reliance upon judgments rendered by this Court in Subhash Singh and others v. Jatinder Singh and others, (2009) 156 PLR 608, Pawan Kumar and another v. Vijay Kumar and others, MANU/PH/2332/2010 and Keshyan Brother and others v. J.K.Cement Works and another, MANU/PH/2035/2010. A careful perusal of pleading of parties shows that though it was for the respondent-plaintiff to prove execution of agreement to sell by petitioner-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiff and however, a specific plea of fraud being committed upon petitioner-defendant was also taken by petitioner-defendant in his written statement. Hence, additional issues were framed by learned trial Court. In order to rebut the said plea of petitioner- defendant, respondent-plaintiff intends to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert. Rather he was already examined. Only cross-examination is to be conducted on behalf of petitioner-defendant, which was allowed by learned trial Court. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 30, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 4