IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6834 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: April 27, 2011. Amandeep Singh. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Gurkirat Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harender Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 03.11.2009, Annexure P3 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Mansa vide which application filed by petitioner-plaintiff dated 22.10.2009, Annexure P1 for adducing additional evidence, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a suit for possession as co-owner of the land in dispute was CR No.6834 of 2009 filed by petitioner-plaintiff on the basis of Will dated 02.10.1997 allegedly executed by Harinder Singh –deceased in his favour. Suit was contested by respondents-defendants No.1 and 2. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the Will dated 2.10.97 is legally and validly executed by Harinder Singh? OPP 2. Whether the sale deed dated 2.6.2000 is illegal, null and void? OPP 3. Whether the mutation of property of Harinder Singh on the basis of natural succession is illegal, null and void? OPP 4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of title to the suit property? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 7. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 8. Whether the defendants are bona-fide purchaser for consideration, if so, its effect? OPD 9. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 10. Relief.” Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Evidence of both the parties was concluded. Case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments when the present application for additional evidence was filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff, which was declined by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that though onus to prove issue No.1 was on petitioner-plaintiff and 2 CR No.6834 of 2009 that evidence was also produced by petitioner-plaintiff in affirmative to prove the said issue and however, handwriting and fingerprint expert could not be examined to prove the signatures of executant and that rather handwriting and fingerprint expert has been examined by the other party. Hence, it is contended that though the application was filed for additional evidence and however, he be permitted to adduce evidence in rebuttal to the statement of handwriting and fingerprint expert examined by respondents-defendants. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants No.1 and 2 that onus to prove Issue No.1 was on petitioner-plaintiff and he already led evidence in order to prove the said issue and that the evidence was closed without reserving the right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. He has further contended that Order 18 Rule 17-A of Code of Civil Procedure, which provided for allowing a party to adduce additional evidence, has already been deleted. It has also been contended that petitioner-plaintiff is having no right to adduce evidence in rebuttal to prove Issue No.1 onus of which was on him. There is force in the arguments of learned counsel for respondents-defendants No.1 and 2. There is no dispute that onus to prove Issue No.1 i.e. genuineness of Will allegedly executed by Harinder Singh – deceased was on petitioner-plaintiff. Petitioner-plaintiff has already led evidence in affirmative. Petitioner-plaintiff could examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in order to prove Issue No.1 in affirmative evidence. It cannot be said that petitioner-plaintiff is having right to adduce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by respondents-defendants No.1 and 2. It is pertinent to reproduce Order 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure which read as under:- 3 CR No.6834 of 2009 “3. Evidence where several issues —Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” A bare perusal of the said provision shows that plaintiff is having right to adduce evidence in rebuttal only when there is an issue onus of which is on the other party and that too if he reserves his right to adduce evidence in rebuttal to the said issue at the time of closing his evidence in affirmative. In this case petitioner-plaintiff already adduced evidence in affirmative in order to prove Issue No.1. Hence, learned trial Court has rightly held that he is having no right to adduce evidence in rebuttal to prove the said issue. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 by Hon’ble Apex Court that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a 4 CR No.6834 of 2009 grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. There is no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 27, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 5