C.R. 300 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 300 of 2011 Date of decision: 17.1.2011 Sukhjinder Singh Petitioner vs. Chamkaur Singh Respondent Present: Mr. Rajesh Bhateja, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The defendant has filed this petition aggrieved by order dated 12.1.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Moga whereby the said court had accepted affidavit of respondent-plaintiff Ex.PW2/B in rebuttal evidence, besides declaring the cross-examination as nil. Learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner has contended that counsel for the defendant- petitioner had made a request for an adjournment besides raising a plea that the plaintiff could lead evidence in rebuttal. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff- respondent has filed a suit for recovery against the defendant- petitioner on the basis of a pronote, which was allegedly executed by the defendant- petitioner in favour of plaintiff- respondent. The following issue No.6 has been framed by the trial court:- “ Whether the pronote and receipt dated 4.9.02 is forged and fabricated? OPD.” The defendant- petitioner has already completed his evidence. The plaintiff- respondent has certainly got a right to lead rebuttal C.R. 300 of 2011 2 evidence on issue No.6. The trial court has rightly permitted the production of rebuttal evidence in the shape of affidavit Ex. PW2/B to enable the plaintiff- respondent to lead evidence on issue No.6 but at the same time it is illegal on the part of the trial court not to permit the defendant's counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff- respondent on affidavit Ex.PW2/B. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit contains certain depositions, which are beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence, without expression of any opinion on the averments in affidavit Ex.PW2/B, it is clarified that the affidavit Ex.PW2/B at the time of final arguments will be considered only for the limited purpose of rebuttal. It will be open to the trial court to ignore the material, which is beyond the rebuttal evidence in case pointed out at the time of final arguments. The impugned order dated 12.1.2011 declining the adjournment to defendant- petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff- respondent on affidavit Ex.PW2/B appears to be improper. The observation in order dated 12.1.2011 (annexure P-5) is set aside only to the extent of declining the adjournment for cross-examination to the counsel for defendant- petitioner. Counsel for defendant- petitioner will be entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff regarding the relevant averments in rebuttal evidence in the shape of affidavit Ex.PW2/B. Disposed of in the above terms. Copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of the Special Secretary. January 17 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE