Civil Revision No. 5789 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5789 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 21.09.2011 Garib Dass .... Petitioner Versus Ajit Ram ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.C.L. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.23107-CII of 2011 The application for permission to file typed copies of documents annexed as Annexures P-2 to P-6 is sought. The same is granted. Application stands disposed of accordingly. CM No. 23108-CII of 2011 Application for permission to place on record Annexures P-1 to P-6 is allowed. The documents are taken on record. CR No.5789 of 2011 This is a revision petition brought by Garib Dass, defendant against the order dated 26.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balachaur, vide which the application of the plaintiff/respondent Ajit Singh for examining fingerprint expert in rebuttal is allowed. Civil Revision No. 5789 of 2011 --2-- Garib Dass, petitioner had filed a suit against Ajit Ram and others, which was decreed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Balachaur, vide judgment and decree dated 7.12.2001. The said judgment and decree were challenged in the appeal, which also failed. The said judgment and decree have been challenged by way of a civil suit in which the plaintiff has set up an agreement alleged to be executed by the petitioner. In the said suit, the following issues were framed:- “1- Whether judgment and decree dated 3.12.2001 in case titled as Garib Dass v. Jit Ram passed by the court of Additional Civil Judge (SD), Balachaur is null, void and is liable to be set aside ?OPP 2- Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 3- Whether plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present suit ?OPD 4- Whether alleged agreement is forged and fabricated and is result of fraud?OPD 5- Whether suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ?OPD 6- Relief.” Thereafter the plaintiff Ajit Ram led his evidence and concluded the same. The defendant-petitioner then led his evidence. On application of the petitioner himself, the original agreement dated 5.1.2005 was produced by the plaintiff. The evidence of the defendant-petitioner Civil Revision No. 5789 of 2011 --3-- was over on 05.08.2011 and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence for 8.8.2011. The plaintiff filed an application on 17.8.2011 for permission to get the signatures of Garib Dass compared by handwriting expert without giving any reason for not having done so at the time he was leading his evidence. That application has been allowed by learned trial court. Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. C.L. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff led his entire evidence and while closing the same did not reserve any right for leading any evidence thereafter. According to him, the defendant-petitioner had examined handwriting expert in his evidence and now the plaintiff has no right to examine handwriting expert. He has drawn my attention towards two decisions of this court in Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and other 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537 and Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 366. In Surjit Singh and others' case (supra), where it has been laid down that a party cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues of which burden of proof was on that party. In Dinesh Kumar's case (supra) it has been laid down that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to produce evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendants in rebuttal to the evidence led by the plaintiff on the issue, the burden of which was on the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 5789 of 2011 --4-- A reference to issue no.4 mentioned as above, would be a decisive factor in the revision petition. Under this issue, the onus of which is on the defendant, it is to be proved that the alleged agreement is forged and fabricated and is a result of fraud. In rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendant on this issue, the plaintiff is well within his rights to examine handwriting expert. The decisions cited above only lay down that the plaintiff does not have a right to produce evidence in rebuttal of the evidence of the defendants, on the issues, the onus of which is on the plaintiff. Here evidence is sought to be led on the issue, the onus of which is on the defendant. In these circumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order and consequently dismiss the revision petition. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 21.09.2011 dinesh