Civil Revision No. 233 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 233 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.2.2010 Ram Kala .. Petitioner v. Smt. Bateri Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O. P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 17.11.2009, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for permitting him to lead evidence in rebuttal, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff in the present case filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which both the parties had led their evidence and the suit was at the final stage, when the application was filed by the petitioner seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal. The same having been rejected, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as alleged ?OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hand ?OPD 5. Whether the defendants are owners in possession of the property in dispute ?OPD 6. Relief” Civil Revision No. 233 of 2010 [2] As onus of issues No. 2 to 5 was on the respondents-defendants, in response to the evidence led by them on those issues, the petitioner-plaintiff was entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal. All what is sought to be proved in evidence are photographs in response to the photographs (Ex. D1 to Ex. D3) and site plan, which have been produced by the respondents-defendants in their evidence. Reliance was placed upon Ranjit Singh v. Mehfil Restaurant, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 225 (P&H); Jai Narain v. Satya Narain and others, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 274 (P&H) and Pawan Kumar v. Surinder Pal and another, 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 380 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff in the present case had filed the suit praying for grant of permanent injunction on the plea that he is owner in possession of the suit property. The onus of issue No. 1, i.e., as to whether the petitioner/plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for is on the petitioner-plaintiff. Issues No. 2 to 4 are legal in nature, whereas issue No. 5 was not required to be framed as the petitioner-plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and is not to find fault/defect/ deficiency in the evidence led by the respondents-defendants. To substantiate the plea and to get the relief for permanent injunction, the petitioner was required to prove his possession on the property. In the evidence sought to be led in rebuttal, only photographs are sought to be produced, which will not improve the case of the petitioner-plaintiff any further as those photographs were taken during the pendency of the suit and in any case, the photographs are not going to show the possession of the property. He further submitted that the primary issue in the present case is issue No. 1, the onus of which is on the petitioner-plaintiff. If there is lacking in evidence led by the petitioner-plaintiff on that issue, he cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna in the evidence already led. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The case set up by the petitioner in the suit filed is that he is owner in possession of the suit property, which was being used by him for keeping the cattles and for storing fodder. The prayer in the suit is for permanent injunction. In the written statement filed by the respondents-defendants, the stand is that they are owners in possession of the property. It was on account of that, issue No. 5 was framed regarding ownership and possession of the property of the respondents-defendants, the onus of which was put on them. Still the evidence, which is sought to be led by the petitioner-plaintiff in rebuttal is in the form of photographs, copies of which have been attached on the file. Those photographs in any case will not show as to who is either owner or in possession of the property in Civil Revision No. 233 of 2010 [3] dispute. Whatever evidence the petitioner-plaintiff was to lead to discharge his onus of issue No. 1 has already been led. Merely because in response thereto, the respondents-defendants had led some evidence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rebut the same solely on the plea that onus of issue No. 5 was on the respondents-defendants. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 8.2.2010 mk