Civil Revision No. 7218 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7218 of 2011 Date of decision. 25.11.2011 Jasbir Kaur .... Petitioner Versus Joginder Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.P.Soi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Jasbir Kaur, defendant no.1 has brought the present revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.),Nakodar, District Jalandhar (Annexure P-5) whereby the objections of learned counsel for the petitioner to the examination of PW- 5 in rebuttal was overruled. It is the case of the petitioner that inspite of the fact that there was no issue of rebuttal and the plaintiff had closed her evidence in affirmative, still the plaintiff was allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. Civil Revision No. 7218 of 2011 --2-- Joginder Kaur, plaintiff-respondent no.1 had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she is owner in joint possession of land measuring 10 kanals 12 marlas properly detailed in head note of the plaint, situated in the revenue estate of village Mehatpur Tehsil Nakodar District Jalandhar. The plaintiff had put Dr. Mukesh, Medical Officer from Civil Hospital Nakodar in the witness box as PW-5 in rebuttal and his evidence was objected to on the ground that the same could not be led in the rebuttal evidence. The said objection was over-ruled vide order dated 14.11.2011 passed on the order sheet and it is this order, which is challenged by Jasbir Kaur, defendant no.1 by way of this revision petition. I have heard Shri S.P. Soi, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no issue framed in this suit, the onus of which may be on the defendants. According to him, what the plaintiff was to prove was by way of leading evidence in affirmative and she had no right to lead any evidence in rebuttal. He has drawn my attention to Annexure P-1 where the issues framed on 18.11.2005 have been extracted. He has submitted that in these circumstances, the objections could not be over-ruled. Issue no.3, as framed by learned trial court, mentioned in Annexure P-1 is as under:- Civil Revision No. 7218 of 2011 --3-- “Whether defendant no.1 has become the absolute owner of the property in dispute on the basis of will executed by Jatinder Singh original owner of the property in dispute?OPP” Although a certified copy of the issues framed in the suit is on the file where it is mentioned that the onus to prove this issue was on the defendants, even if it is taken that the trial court has placed the onus of proof of this issue on the plaintiff, then the same can at the most be said to be a clerical mistake. The question posed in this issue clearly suggests that it is for defendant no.1 to prove that she has become the absolute owner of the property in dispute on the basis of the will executed by Jatinder Singh , the original owner of the property in dispute. So issue no.3, which is a material issue has to be proved by defendant no.1 and the plaintiff has got the right to lead the evidence in rebuttal on this issue. Therefore, learned trial court has not committed any error much less error apparent on the record by overruling the objections raised by defendant no.1 at the time of examination of Dr. Mukesh, Medical Officer in rebuttal. Consequently, I find no merit in the revision petition and dismiss the same. 25.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE