C.R.No.2854 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2854 of 2005 Date of Decision : 20.10.2009 Ramkuwar ...Petitioner Versus Ramkumar Sharma ...Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: None. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition by the plaintiff is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 28.4.2005, whereby the defendant was permitted to examine expert witness after he closed his evidence on 22.3.2005. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.43,000/- out of which Rs.25,000/- is the amount of principal and Rs.18,000/- is the amount of interest. The defendant in his written statement admitted the execution of pronote and receipt but pleaded repayment of the pronote amount. The defendant confronted the plaintiff with the receipt in respect of repayment, which the plaintiff denied in his cross-examination. Thereafter, the defendant led his evidence and closed the same on 22.3.2005. Thereafter, an application was filed by the defendant for examining expert witness to prove the signatures of the plaintiff on the receipt with which the plaintiff was confronted with during the course of his cross-examination. The learned trial Court allowed the application filed by the defendant holding that onus of proof of repayment was on the defendant. C.R.No.2854 of 2005 2 Since, the onus of the said issue was on the defendant, therefore, he has a right to lead evidence on such issue in rebuttal. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court is not sustainable in law. The onus of proof of the repayment was on the defendant. The plaintiff was confronted with the receipt in his cross- examination. Thereafter, the defendant has led his entire evidence. The defendant has a right to examine expert witness while leading his evidence on the said issue. The plaintiff started his evidence. Thereafter, the defendant led his evidence in affirmative on issue of repayment and in rebuttal generally. Therefore, the defendant is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal on such issue, as it was for the defendant to lead his entire evidence, when an opportunity was granted to him to lead evidence. The Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537, has examined the right of leading evidence in rebuttal. It has been held that the right to lead evidence in rebuttal will arise only to the plaintiff in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the defendant. Here, it is the defendant, who has sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, when he has led his entire evidence in affirmative in respect of the issue, the onus of which was on the defendant. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned trial Court is proved to be suffering from patent illegality or irregularity. The present revision petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. 20.10.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE