C.R. No.5320 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5320 of 2010 Date of Decision: 24.08.2010 Smt. Kavita and others .……Petitioners Versus Sardari Lal Khosla and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Karnajit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is revision petition by legal representatives of Subhash Chander original plaintiff since deceased filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 13.02.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala thereby partly allowing and partly dismissing the application moved by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC). Subhash Chander plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction. Sale deed dated 13.09.2000 allegedly executed by Subhash Chander in favour of Sardari Lal Khosla defendant/respondent No.1 was challenged as being null and void and forged and fabricated document which was never executed by the plaintiff Subhash Chander by whom it purports to have been executed. The defendants, however, alleged that Subhash Chander original plaintiff had sold the suit property to defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 13.09.2000 and delivered possession of the suit property C.R. No.5320 of 2010 -2- to defendant No.1 and thereafter plaintiff Subhash Chander took the suit property on rent from defendant No.1 by executing rent deed dated 15.03.2001. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, petitioners moved application under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC to get compared alleged signatures of Subhash Chander on sale deed dated 13.09.2000 and on rent note dated 15.03.2001 with his standard signatures through handwriting expert. The application was resisted by the defendants. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 13.02.2010 allowed the application for comparison of signatures of Subhash Chander on rent note dated 15.03.2001, but dismissed the application for comparison of signatures of Subhash Chander on sale deed dated 13.09.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred by legal representatives of the plaintiff. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that sale deed dated 13.09.2000 was set up by the defendants in the written statement and thereafter the suit was amended to challenge the said sale deed and, therefore, under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, petitioners have right to lead evidence in rebuttal to depict that the sale deed dated 13.09.2000 was not executed by Subhash Chander original plaintiff and does not bear his signatures. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Issues No.1 and 5 framed in the suit relating to aforesaid sale deed and rent note are reproduced hereunder:- “1. Whether the sale deed dated 13.09.2000 is C.R. No.5320 of 2010 -3- illegal, null and void and result of fraud and misrepresentation? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as a tenant under defendant No.1? OPD” It was pleaded by the defendants that plaintiff took back the property on rent from defendant No.1 by executing rent note and, therefore, onus of issue No.5 was placed on the defendants and consequently, the petitioners have been rightly permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal to depict that no such rent note dated 15.03.2001 as pleaded by the defendants was ever executed by the original plaintiff Subhash Chander. However, onus of issue No.1 relating to sale deed is on the plaintiff and, therefore, the petitioners as legal representatives of the plaintiff could not be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal to depict that the said sale deed was not executed by Subhash Chander or that the sale deed does not bear his signatures. The petitioners were supposed to lead this evidence at the stage of affirmative evidence and not at the stage of rebuttal evidence. It is well settled that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue onus whereof is on the plaintiff. This view is supported by two judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Jagdev Singh and others versus Darshan Singh and others, (2007-2) PLR 315 and Surjit Singh and others versus Jagtar Singh and others, (2007-1) PLR 552. In view of ratio of law laid down in these judgments, the petitioners have been rightly permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal relating to rent note as the said evidence pertains to issue No.5 onus whereof is on the defendants. Similarly, the petitioners have been rightly declined permission to C.R. No.5320 of 2010 -4- lead evidence in rebuttal relating to sale deed as it pertains to issue No.1 onus whereof is on the plaintiff. There is thus no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 24.08.2010. A. Kaundal