CR No. 1376 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 1376 of 2009 Date of decision March 10, 2009 Mohinder Lal Kapoor ....... Petitioners Versus Gian Chand ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J(oral) 1. The revision is against the order of dismissal of the petition by the landlord seeking for rebuttal evidence and seek to introduce the rent deed alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the petitioner. The Court below rejected it on the ground that in a case where the relationship of landlord and tenant had been denied in the written statement the burden of proof was on the landlord to establish such a relationship in the first instance. He ought to have give all the evidence in support of his contention regarding the existence of such jural relationship. It is admitted that the petitioner's evidence was closed, the tenant's side witness had also been closed and at that time the landlord came with a request for leading in rebuttal evidence. Rebuttal by nature of things can only rebut when defendants states on an issue in respect of which the burden is on him. A rebuttal cannot be on a issue on which the landlord himself has to discharge the burden of proof at the first instance. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a CR No. 1376 of 2009 2 decision of this Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. Kankar Singh 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 513 that the party beginning has to give his evidence only to prove the issue he is bound to prove. He will at his option, either, produce his remaining evidence on other issues or to reserve his right to produce his remaining evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the other party. Then the party beginning will be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. It is not understandable as to how this decision could ever advance the case of the petitioner. The party beginning shall give the whole evidence in respect of a matter on which the burden of proof was on him and the reservation of producing his evidence on other issues or the remaining evidence would arise only in respect of matters where the burden of proof was on the defendant. In a case where the burden of establishing the landlord-tenant relationship was wholly on the landlord at the time when he enters into a witness box in the first instance cannot claim that a defence by the tenant that he is not a tenant is a matter that is required to be rebutted again by the landlord. The plaintiff cannot play a sing song game and seek for re-opening an issue relating to the existence of jural relationship by reference to any document of lease which he had not referred to either in petition or in examination-in-chief at the first instance. 3. The Court below has dismissed the petition on justifiable grounds and there is no merit in the Civil revision petition and the same is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 10, 2009 archana