Civil Revision No. 6576 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6576 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 8.10.2010 Karnail Singh .....Petitioner Versus Ranbir Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? Present: Shri R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 10.9.2010, whereby the plaintiffs have been permitted to lead rebuttal evidence i.e. by examining Handwriting Expert, on additional Issue No.2-A. The dispute between the parties is regarding the inheritance of the estate of one Prithvi Singh. The plaintiffs rely upon the Will dated 18.1.1994 executed by Prithvi Singh in favour of the plaintiffs, whereas the defendants have propounded the Will dated 12.3.1998 executed in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3. On 5.8.2010, the learned trial Court framed two additional issues. Such additional issues were framed after the counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant Civil Revision No. 6576 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Nos. 1 to 3 have stated that they shall not lead any additional evidence on the issues framed. The said order reads as under:- “Separate statements of Shri Rajiv Kaushish, Advocate for plaintiffs and Shri Hari Krishan, Advocate, for defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been recorded, who stated that consequent upon framing additional issues, they shall not lead further evidence as they have already led evidence regarding execution of those Wills. Learned counsel for defendants No. 1 to 3 also stated that he has no objection, if additional issues are framed. In view of the above, application is allowed as prayed for and following additional issues are hereby framed:- “1A. whether Prithvi Singh executed lawful and valid will dated 18.1.1994 in favour of plaintiffs? OPP 2A. Whether Prithvi Singh voluntarily executed lawful and valid Will dated 12.3.1998 in favour of defendants No. 1 to 3? OPD” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement made by the counsel for the plaintiffs on 3.8.2010. The said statement reads as under:- “Stated that no evidence is to be given in affirmative on additional issue. If defendant gives the evidence then he will give rebuttal evidence.” Learned counsel for the petitioners (defendant Nos. 1 to 3) has vehemently argued that the plaintiffs wish to fill up the lacunae in evidence under the garb of leading the evidence in rebuttal, when it was a categorical case of the plaintiffs that no further evidence is required to be led. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead rebuttal evidence so as to examine the Handwriting Expert when the report of the Handwriting Expert was already produced in evidence as Exhibit P.10. I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The statement of the counsel for the plaintiffs before the additional Civil Revision No. 6576 of 2010 (O&M) [3] issues were framed is to the effect that no evidence is to be given in affirmative on additional issues and that if the defendants give evidence, then the plaintiffs would give rebuttal evidence. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as the defendants have not given any evidence in rebuttal, therefore, the plaintiffs are precluded from leading any evidence in rebuttal. The statement of the counsel for the plaintiffs on 3.8.2010 can be read to the effect that the plaintiffs have closed their evidence in affirmative on additional issues. However, even if the defendants have not led any evidence, the plaintiffs have a right to rebuttal evidence on the additional issue No. 2-A, the onus of which was on the defendants. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that since the dispute in the suit is between the close relations in respect of the estate of Prithvi Singh, the evidence led by the parties would help the Court in arriving at a just decision. Therefore, examination of the Handwriting Expert on additional issue No. 2-A cannot be said to be unwarranted, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE 8.10.2010 ds