C.R. No. 7047 of 2011 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 7047 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 17, 2011 Pyare .......................................................... Petitioner Versus Lakhi Ram and another ............................ Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioner. ... RITU BAHRI, J. Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 11.6.2011 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff to produce the revenue record in rebuttal has been declined. The onus to lead evidence in the affirmative on issue No.1 was on the plaintiff. On 20.1.2004, issue No.1 was framed i.e. “Whether ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.12.2000 passed by learned A.D.J. Jhajjar is null and void?” This evidence could have been led by the plaintiff. The plaintiff could lead this evidence when he had the C.R. No. 7047 of 2011 (O&M) [ 2 ] opportunity to do so. Onus to lead evidence on issue Nos. 2 to 4 was on the defendants. The plaintiff could lead evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendants. He cannot lead the evidence which he could have led in affirmative in rebuttal. This proposition of law has been settled by judgments in Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and other 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 537 wherein it has been held as under:- “In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC. The rule clearly postulates that 'the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties'. No matter how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it . The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The C.R. No. 7047 of 2011 (O&M) [ 3 ] statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles.” Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment in the facts of the present case, the order dated 11.6.2011 does not suffer from any illegality. The Civil Revision is dismissed. 17.11.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Rupi JUDGE