C.R. No. 5860 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5860 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: Sept. 23rd, 2011. Kashmir Singh .... Petitioner Versus Gurdial singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Shri M.L.Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 6.9.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ajnala, vide which the application made by the petitioner-plaintiff under the provisions of section 45 read with section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, has been dismissed. The prayer in the application is for comparison of signatures of the defendant on the agreement of sale dated 18.3.1998 with specimen signatures on the power of attorney, executed in favour of the counsel and the agreement of sale dated 6.2.1998. It may be noticed that plaintiff-petitioner had brought the suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.3.1998. This agreement has been denied to be executed by the defendant, who had taken a specific plea that the C.R. No. 5860 of 2011 2 .. document is forged and fabricated. In the face of this plea of the defendant, the plaintiff was to prove due execution of the same by leading evidence in affirmative. It cannot be said that he should have waited for the defendant to lead his evidence, assessing the same and then apply for permission to lead evidence to rebut the same. In rebuttal, the right to the plaintiff is to lead evidence only on those issues, the onus of which was on the defendant. He cannot lead any evidence in rebuttal on an issue, the onus of which was on him. The submission made before me by learned counsel for the petitioner that the report of the Hand Writing Expert would substantiate the case of the plaintiff is of no avail. The evidence has to be led as per the procedure laid down by Order 18 CPC and not for helping the parties to support their cases. Therefore, learned trial Court has been fully justified in declining the prayer of the plaintiff in this regard. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 23rd, 2011 som