Civil Revision No. 6633 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6633 of 2011 Date of decision. 01.11.2011 Radheyshyam .... Petitioner Versus Lakhi Ram and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.P.K. Chugh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Radheyshyam, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 21.09.2011 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar whereby his application for summoning Sukhbir Sharma, Draftsman(Civil) alongwith existing site plan in rebuttal has been dismissed. Radheyshyam, plaintiff has brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing him from a plot measuring 350 square yards on which he has constructed a house over 225 square yards of land and has kept remaining 125 square yards as open for tethering cattle etc. He has filed application for summoning and examining Sukhbir Sharma, Draftsman (Civil ) in rebuttal. Civil Revision No. 6633 of 2011 --2-- In reply to the application, the defendants had averred that the plaintiff should have filed the said site plan when he was leading his evidence and he is not entitled to lead that evidence in rebuttal. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, dismissed the application vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri P.K. Chugh, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully. What evidence can be led in rebuttal is very clear from the provisions of Order 18 Rules 2 and 3 CPC. The scope of rebuttal evidence is limited. What can be led as evidence in rebuttal should be the evidence on an issue, the onus of which is upon the defendant. If the onus of an issue is on the plaintiff, he has to lead his evidence on that issue in his affirmative evidence. The site plan or the draftsman to prove the same have been the evidence on the issue, the onus of which is on the plaintiff and there is no reason for which the plaintiff could be allowed to lead his evidence in rebuttal. In these circumstances, the plaintiff had no right to lead evidence of the draftsman in rebuttal and learned trial court cannot held unjustified in declining his prayer. Therefore, the revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 01.11.2011 dinesh