IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3598 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: January 20, 2011 Dharambir Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Anupama .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 23.2.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sonepat, dismissing the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner (herein referred as, 'the plaintiff') for examination of the disputed signatures of the defendant with the admitted and specimen signatures from the Government Agency like Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban on account of rebuttal evidence. It was the suit for specific performance on the basis of the agreement to sell. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement to sell. After framing the issues, the court invited the plaintiff to lead evidence and he led evidence upon the issues, the onus of which was upon him. Thereafter, the defendant also led evidence and also examined handwriting and finger print expert for comparison of the signatures of the defendant with some specimen signatures. Thereafter the plaintiff moved the application for additional evidence to examine the another expert in rebuttal to the expert examined by the defendant. The trial court declined to accept the application. Arguments heard. Record perused. There is no denying a fact that there was no such issue, the onus of which was upon the defendant against which the plaintiff was liable to examine the handwriting and finger print expert. The plaintiff could lead the evidence against the issues, the onus of which was upon him. However, he could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendant. At the same time he could lead any evidence in rebuttal to Civil Revision No. 3598 of 2010 -2- *** the evidence led by the defendant on the issue, the onus of which was upon him. But this is not the position in this case. The trial court has rightly observed that there is difference between the additional evidence and the evidence in rebuttal. Similar observations were made in case Tejinder Kaur vs. Kishan Singh and others 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 485. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case Surjit Singh and others vs. Jagtar Singh and other 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537 observed 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 statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra). It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that “the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only,” the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashmir Kaur (supra) that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the observations of the Division Bench in Jaswant Kaur's case (supra). The Division Civil Revision No. 3598 of 2010 -3- *** Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been clearly held that such a reservation has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Punjab Steel Corporation (supra). In that case the plaintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned Single Judge run contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Jaswant Kaur (supra). No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the same time, it has been held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of Jaswant Kaur (supra) and R.N.Mittal, J. in National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra).” In the instant case, no such statement has been made by the learned counsel reserving his right to lead any evidence in rebuttal. Thus, in view of the settled law, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. However, there is a difference between the additional evidence and the evidence in rebuttal. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. However, this order will not curtail the rights of the plaintiff to move an application for additional evidence and in that case if the court considers that the additional evidence sought for is essential for just decision of the case, the court would proceed accordingly, however, this order of mine would not amount to opening the gates to the plaintiff for Civil Revision No. 3598 of 2010 -4- *** leading additional evidence, but it is left open to the trial court to examine if the additional evidence could be permitted on the grounds as provided under the law. January 20, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge