Civil Revision No. 934 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 934 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 13.5.2010 Sat Parkash alias Satya Parkash and another .. Petitioners v. Kumari Balwanti Devi and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. R. A. Yadav, Advocate for the respondents. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 29.1.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs for leading certain evidence in rebuttal was partially allowed to the extent that they were permitted to produce copies of judgment and decree, whereas the examination of witness was declined. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to vacate a part of the house owned by the petitioners pleading that they are owners thereof. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. The onus of some of the issues was on the petitioners-plaintiffs, whereas for some of the issues, the same was on the defendants. After the defendants had led evidence to discharge the burden cast on them on the issues, the onus of which was on them, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed application seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal. The same having been partially rejected vide impugned order, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs submitted that after the petitioners-plaintiffs had led the evidence on the issues, the onus of which was on them, the respondents-defendants led evidence in defence and also in affirmative on the issues, the onus of which was on them. It is at this stage that the petitioners- plaintiffs filed application for permitting them to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Civil Revision No. 934 of 2010 [2] prayer was for proving a site plan produced by the defendants in another suit filed by them, which falsifies the stand taken by them. Another evidence sought to be produced, which has not been allowed by the learned court below is that the certificate had been issued by one Ramesh Chand on letter head of Arya Samaj Mandir claiming himself to be the President thereof showing that the defendants are residing in the property in dispute, whereas Ramesh Chand is not even the President of the Society. He further submitted that once the learned court below had permitted the petitioners to produce judgment and decree in rebuttal evidence, there was no reason to decline the aforesaid evidence, especially when one of that had to come from the judicial record only. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-defendants submitted that it is no stage for permitting the petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal. In fact, the petitioners were well within knowledge of the material evidence, which is now sought to be produced by them and the same should have been produced in their evidence in affirmative. The object is only to fill in the lacuna and delay the proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. The prayer in the suit is for mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to vacate the property in dispute. The onus of four, out of six issues, was on the respondents- defendants, the same being limitation, locus standi, cause of action, estoppel from filing the suit and also concealment of true and material facts. The respondents having led evidence in affirmative on these issues, the petitioners-plaintiffs certainly has a right to rebut the same thereafter. All what the petitioners sought to produce in rebuttal evidence was judgment and decree in an earlier suit and site plan produced by the defendants in the earlier suit filed by the respondents- defendants, which is said to be different than what was produced by the defendants in the evidence led in the present case and also to show that the certificate produced by the defendants in their evidence about their place of residence is false and fabricated document, as the person who had signed the same was non-existent. In my opinion, an opportunity to produce the above evidence certainly deserves to be granted. The learned court below had merely granted permission to the petitioners-plaintiffs to produce the judgment and decree and rejected the prayer for other two which, in my opinion, also deserves to be granted. For the reasons mentioned above, the impugned order to the extent the prayer of the petitioners-plaintiffs for leading evidence in rebuttal was rejected, is set aside and the petitioners are granted opportunity to prove the site plan Civil Revision No. 934 of 2010 [3] produced by the respondents in a suit titled “Kumari Balwanti Devi and another v. Ramesh Chand and others' decided on 25.9.2009 and also regarding certificate of Arya Samaj Mandir signed by Ramesh Chand son of Jagdish Chand. The present petition stands disposed of, in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 13.5.2010 mk