Civil Revision No.2328 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2328 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.2.2009 Smt. Khazani and others ...Petitioners Versus Deep Chand and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Likesh Sinhal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The plea raised by the plaintiffs-petitioners for being allowed to examine an hand-writing expert was declined by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.3.2008. The averment, on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners, before the Trial Court was that the filing of that plea had been occasioned by the fact that the defendant-respondent-Deep Chand had, in the course of his testimony, denied that the impugned Panchnama bears his thumb impression and he had falsely tried to raise a plea that it was a case of forgery /fraud. In support of the plea, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs- petitioners argues that the petitioners could have examined the expert only if defendants-respondents had offered denial of the averment (made by the plaintiffs-petitioners in the plaint) that the impugned Panchnama had been executed between the parties to the cause. Civil Revision No.2328 of 2008 -2- **** The other part of the grievance on behalf of the plaintiffs- petitioners is that the defendants-respondents raised a forgery/fraud related plea only in the course of the testimony at the trial. The plea, raised in the context, is that it is only the examination of finger print expert which will enable the defendants/respondents to disapprove the plea of forgery/fraud etc. In the petition itself, the plaintiffs-petitioners have quoted para 6 of the plaint which reads as under:- “That the plaintiffs after coming to know the above factum of wrong entries in the revenue records reflecting the defendant No.1 as owner in possession of the suit land in pursuance of the impugned/illegal judgment and decree dated 6.8.74, the plaintiffs met the defendant no.1 and asked him to get the entries rectified in favour of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant no.1 resisted this offer of the plffs. Which given rise to a dispute over the land in question. Then the plaintiffs convened a Panchayat of brotherhood at village Harphali on 14.6.99 and with the intervention of the respectables of the society, parties arrived at a compromise/settlement and in that settlement the defendant No.1 acknowledged the plaintiffs as owner in possession of the suit property and also promised to get corrected the entries in the revenue records in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 also acknowledged the said settlement/Panch Faisal in writing which was duly executed on 16.6.99. The defendant No.1 has however again turned hostile and is reluctant to get corrected the entries in favour of the plaintiffs. These wrong entries in the revenue records Civil Revision No.2328 of 2008 -3- **** reflecting the defendant No.1 as absolute owner in possession of the suit property have cast clouds over the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, this suit.” The corresponding para of the written statement has also been quoted in the petition itself which reads as under:- “That the para No.6 of the plaint is wrong and denied. It is denied that the judgment dated 6.8.1974 is illegal judgment as alleged. It is denied that there is any dispute between the parties over the lands as alleged. It is denied that the plaintiffs ever convened any panchayat as alleged. It is denied that the parties arrived to any compromise as alleged. It is also denied that the answering defendant No.1 ever acknowledge the plaintiffs as owner in possession of the suit property as alleged. It is also denied that the answering defendant no.1 ever promised to plaintiffs to correct the entries of the suit land in their favour as alleged. It is also denied that the answering defendants ever acknowledged any panch faisla in writing as alleged. It is also denied that the revenue entries of the suit land are wrong so the story of its rectification does not arise at all. It is denied that the plaintiffs have any title over the suit property as alleged. It is submitted that the answering defendants are owners and in possession of the suit property.” It is apparent from the conjunctive perusal of the above quoted pleas of the parties that the defendants-respondents had denied having executed the impugned panchnama. In that view of things, there is force in the finding of the learned Trial Court that the plaintiffs-petitioners were in the know of denial aforementioned from the very beginning and if they were Civil Revision No.2328 of 2008 -4- **** so inclined, they could have examined the hand writing expert in affirmative evidence. The onus of proof in the relevant behalf was upon them. Insofar as the other part of the grievance put forward on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners is concerned, it is obvious that if the plea regarding forgery/fraud had seen the light of the day for the first time in the course of deposition on oath of Deep Chand-defendant-respondent and there is no relatable plea in the pleadings at the trial, the reception of that evidence would not be a feasible phenomenon. There is plethora of law on the point that evidence beyond the pleadings cannot be looked into. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 24, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge