Civil Revision No. 5544 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5544 of 2011 Date of decision. 12.09.2011 Sital Parkash Jain .... Petitioner Versus Smt. Kanta Jain and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Naveen Batra, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the legality of the order dated 29.08.2011( Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide which the application of the petitioner for additional evidence for examining Handwriting Expert has been dismissed. Briefly speaking, the facts required for disposal of this revision petition are that the defendant/petitioner had made an application for permission to examine handwriting expert by way of additional evidence. He had made a counter claim for recovery of Rs.20,000/- with interest. The parties were at issue regarding the defendant/petitioner and Jawahar Lal Civil Revision No. 5544 of 2011 --2-- Jain, plaintiff making a joint request dated 21.09.1998 to PSEB for restoration of the electric connection. While the defendant/petitioner asserted that the parties made this joint request, the plaintiff Jawahar Lal Jain denied his signatures thereon. While leading his evidence, the plaintiff had examined handwriting expert, who had given his opinion that the signatures alleged to be of Jawahar Lal Jain on writing dated 21.09.1998 were not similar to the standard signatures of Jawahar Lal Jain. It is to this evidence that the defendant claims a right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The right to lead evidence of handwriting expert in rebuttal to the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff is denied by the plaintiff. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur dismissed the application vide order dated 29.08.2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has brought this petition. It is submitted that since the plaintiff had led evidence of handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence and as the defendant/petitioner had filed a counter claim, he has a right to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal to the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. I find no merit in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The plaintiff Jawahar Lal Jain made a claim for recovery. His claim was not only resisted by defendant-petitioner but a counter claim was made by him on the ground of the joint request dated 21.09.1998. The Civil Revision No. 5544 of 2011 --3-- alleged joint request was denied by the plaintiff to bear his signatures. The onus to prove the claim based on this joint request for recovery of Rs.20,000/- was thereon the defendant-petitioner for which the following issue was framed by the trial court:- “Whether defendant is entitled to recover Rs.20,000/- from plaintiff by way of counter claim ?OPD” It was under this issue that the defendant-petitioner was to prove the joint request to have been made by Jawahar Lal Jain, plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had denied his signatures on the joint request, it was the defendant- petitioner, who was to prove his signatures on the same in his affirmative evidence. He did not do so. The plaintiff was not required to lead any evidence of comparison of the signatures of Jawahar Lal Jain, alleged to be appearing on the joint request and his admitted signatures. It was after the defendant led his evidence that the plaintiff had the right to lead evidence to prove otherwise. No right was left with the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence to the rebuttal evidence. It has been noticed by learned trial court in the impugned order that the counter claimant entered upon his evidence on 19.10.2005 and concluded the same after about 5-1/2 years on 31.3.2011 after availing opportunity after opportunity. It cannot be said that he did not get proper opportunity to lead his evidence. So, on this ground also the defendant- petitioner is not entitled to lead additional evidence. Civil Revision No. 5544 of 2011 --4-- Consequently I find no patent illegality in the order passed by learned trial court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 12.09.2011 dinesh