IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2779 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 28.4.2010 Gurmeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Sher Singh Mohinder Singh Merchants and Commission Agents ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.10760-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2779 of 2010 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.4.2010 vide which the respondent has been permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the issues which have been framed in the case reveals that the onus to prove the same was on the respondent and not on the petitioner and therefore it was incumbent upon the respondent to lead evidence in the affirmative and he cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. Reliance has been placed on Jagdev Singh & Ors. v. Darshan Singh & Ors. 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 261 (P&H) C.R.No.2779 of 2010 (O&M) -2- (DB), and Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors., AIR 2007 Punjab and Haryana 1, wherein this Court has observed that where the onus is on a person to prove the issues he has to lead the evidence in affirmative and not in rebuttal and that such liberty by the Court to a person cannot be given as a matter of right. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent was for recovery on the basis of statement of accounts which the petitioner pleaded to be a result of forgery and fraud. The petitioner had raised the plea of fraud and therefore it was incumbent upon him to establish the same. In so far as the respondent is concerned he is obviously required to show that the suit for recovery was based on valid material. Once the petitioner has led his evidence in affirmative regarding the fraud, the respondent has rightly been granted the right to rebut the same, more so, as observed earlier, when the plea of fraud has been raised by the petitioner himself. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 28.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss