In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5727 of 2006 (O&M) Date of decision: September 07, 2009 Harbirinder Jit Singh Dhillon and another .. Petitioners Vs. Mohan Singh and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. S.C. Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner to examine the handwriting expert by way of evidence at the rebuttal stage has been dismissed. Heard. Earlier the plaintiff had moved an application for additional evidence, but the trial court had dismissed it but this court allowed the petition vide order dated 12.10.2001 (Annexure P/1) while observing as under :- “For the reasons recorded above, this civil revision petition is allowed and trial court is directed to give one opportunity to the plaintiffs to examine the handwriting expert. Defendants shall, however, be also entitled to cross examine the handwriting expert by taking assistance of their handwriting expert subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-.” Pursuant to the order dated 12.10.2001, the plaintiff was provided opportunity by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Jalandhar, but somehow he failed to lead that evidence by way of examining the expert, as such his evidence was closed on 26.4.2002. However, finding no other way, the plaintiff moved an application for examining the said evidence by way of rebuttal. Civil Revision No. 5727 of 2006 -2- *** I have been informed that the plaintiff had already examined the expert witness in-chief, but the trial court vide order dated 13.9.2006 dis-allowed the defendant to cross-examine the expert witness already examined in-chief. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has come up with this revision petition. Learned counsel for the defendant has not disputed that onus to prove the issue No.5 should have been on the plaintiff but it was by mistake of the court, the onus was placed upon the defendant. Actually, the additional evidence was allowed on the ground that the trial court had created confusion by fixing the onus to prove issue No.5 upon the plaintiff. It was in these circumstances, the trial court had rectified the mistake vide order dated 25.8.2006. Anyway, the onus to prove issue No.5 was upon the plaintiff and he had come to this Court to seek permission to examine expert to prove the said issue by way of additional evidence and this Court permitted him to examine the said witness, but due to some circumstances, he could not examine him and his evidence was closed by order. Anyway, this court while exercising its extra ordinary supervisory powers and in order to impart complete justice to the plaintiff, could allow the said evidence to be led at an extended date which was earlier permitted to lead, by this court. The law is the handmaid of administration of justice. The intention and spirit of law is to impart justice and not to scuttle the same on mere technicalities. This Court had already allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence and the same could be permitted to be allowed at an extended date particularly when the examination of the expert appears to be very material as to bring the cat out of the bag and reach the truth. Under these circumstances, I allow the petition, set aside the impugned order subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs and further direct that the petitioner would close his evidence within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. September 07, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge