Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 06 , 2008 Bal Krishan Chawla ...Petitioner VERSUS Mohinder Lal Chawla & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Ram Lal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Vikas Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Pavan Malik, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.9 and 10. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos.5115 of 2007 (Bal Krishan Chawla v. Mohinder Lal Chawla & others) and Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007 : 2 : 1547 of 2008 (Balkrishan alias Balkishan v. Subash Chand Chawla). Facts are taken from Civil Revision No. 5115 of 2007. Petitioner-plaintiff was allowed to summon Surinder Kumar, defendant No.2, Rajinder Kumar, Deed Writer and Anil Kumar Gupta, Handwriting Expert. Respondent No.3 (defendant No.3) filed an application on 21.9.2007 for dismissing the application moved by the petitioner-plaintiff, which was resisted by the petitioner. The court ultimately viewed that petitioner cannot examine Surinder Kumar, defendant No.2, and Anil Kumar Gupta, documents Expert in rebuttal evidence, but has allowed him to examine Rajinder Kumar Deed Writer. The petitioner has accordingly filed this revision impugning the said order. Through Civil Revision No.1547 of 2008, the petitioner, who is defendant, filed an application under Section 10 CPC for staying the suit till the decision in the earlier suit pending between the parties titled “Balkrishan Vs. Mohinderpal” or alternatively treat issue No.2 in the suit as preliminary issue. This application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed being devoid of merit. This revision is to impugn the said order. The same was ordered to be heard with Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007. The petitioner has filed a suit on 7.2.2000 against Mohinder Lal respondent for declaration that he is owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of a Will dated 5.1.1984. This Will is allegedly executed by Tota Ram in favour of plaintiff and defendant No.2 Surinder Kumar Chawla. Respondent No.2 (defendant No.2) has filed a written statement admitting the claim of Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007 : 3 : the petitioner-plaintiff. Respondent No.3, however, contested the suit and has set up a memo of partition dated 23.3.1988. The issues were framed in the case and plaintiff-petitioner has concluded his evidence. Respondent No.2 (defendant No.2) closed his evidence on 4.9.2006 without examining any witness. Thereafter remaining defendants led evidence. When the case was pending for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner, an application is filed by respondent No.2, who is defendant, on 20.8.2007 seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by another defendant, respondent No.3, on issue No.3. This application was dismissed on 5.9.2007. When the case was pending for rebuttal evidence of the petitioner, he filed an application on 27.8.2007 to summon respondent No.2 Surinder Kumar as his witness, besides summoning Rajinder Kumar, Deed Writer and Anil Kumar Gupta, Documents Expert. The court ordered the summoning of these witnesses. Rajinder Kumar Deed Writer was examined-in-chief on 21.9.2007 and affidavits of Surinder Kumar, defendant No.2, and Anil Kumar, Documents Expert were also placed on record by the petitioner. It is then that this application is filed by respondent No.3 praying that petitioner cannot be allowed to examine these witnesses as it would amount to leading of evidence on behalf of respondent No2, who is defendant No.2 in the suit and had already closed his evidence without examining any witness. Under these circumstances, as per respondent No.3, the petitioner cannot be allowed to bring on record the evidence of respondent No.2, especially so when his prayer to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by respondent No.3 has Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007 : 4 : already been declined on 5.9.2007. The court has apparently noticed this unfair approach on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff to bring on record the evidence of defendant No.2 and Anil Kumar Documents Expert to further the case of defendant No.2, who had failed to lead any evidence when given opportunity. It is to be noticed that respondent No.2 did not lead any evidence to prove that memorandum of partition dated 23.3.1988 had not been scribed by him. This memoranda of partition was scribed by Rajinder Kumar Deed Writer. Considering these peculiar facts, the court has fairly and justly declined the prayer of the petitioner to examine Surinder Kumar (respondent No.2) and Anil Kumar, Documents Expert as a rebuttal evidence. The court has been just in allowing the prayer of the petitioner to examine Rajinder Kumar, who is a Deed Writer having scribed memoranda of partition. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference in the impugned order and the revision petition accordingly is dismissed. The prayer of the petitioner in Civil Revision No.1547 of 2008 for staying the suit filed by Subhash Chand Chawla during the pendency of a suit filed by the petitioner on the basis of a Will has also rightly not been granted. The respondent has filed this suit on 30.8.2001 and the issues were framed on 7.2.2006. He has already closed his evidence and case is fixed for the evidence of the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit. The cause of action in this suit is found entirely different and this is for grant of injunction on the basis of memoranda of partition. The exercise of discretion by the Civil Revision No.5115 of 2007 : 5 : court in declining the prayer of the petitioner for staying apparently does not suffer from any legal infirmity or illegality, which may call for interference. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the order impugned in this revision petition as well. The same is also accordingly dismissed. May 06, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE