CR No.3729 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3729 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 01, 2009 Rajender ...........Petitioner Versus Baru Ram ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Jain, Advocate for the respondent -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hisar. Baru Ram-respondent filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt. When the case was listed for rebuttal evidence, Baru Ram moved an application for summoning the witnesses. Vide the impugned order dated 8.4.2009, the said application was allowed. Hence, the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff could not examine a witness in rebuttal to lead evidence in affirmation. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance CR No.3729 of 2009 2 on Jagdev Singh and others vs. Darshan Singh and others (2007-2)PLR 315 wherein it was held as under:- “The plaintiffs-respondents had concluded their evidence in affirmative on 11.3.1998 and reserved their right to produce evidence in rebuttal. However, the onus to prove the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and the rapat roznamcha which was got entered with the Halqa Patwari on 29.7.1994 was on them (plaintiffs-respondents). Therefore, they could not examine the handwriting expert as a matter or right. Therefore, it is to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case whether the plaintiffs can examine a hand writing expert in rebuttal. The ground for examination of the handwriting expert is that the defendant- Jagdev Singh while appearing in the witness box did not give clear answer as regards his signatures on the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and the rapat roznamcha which was got entered with the Halqa Patwari on 29.7.1994. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case in accordance with law on the basis of evidence. The fact that Jagdev Singh in his cross-examination did not make clear the point as to whether the said documents bear his signatures would not per se entitle the plaintiffs to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal although for not giving answers to the questions posed during cross-examination may entail the drawing of an adverse inference for the purposes of appreciation of evidence. However, it would not give a right to the plaintiffs to make clear the point by producing a handwriting expert at that stage. In the CR No.3729 of 2009 3 circumstances, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has violated the procedure provided for leading evidence which has resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioners and would vitiate the impugned order.” Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the defendant had later on urged that she was not an illiterate, by producing the record of her education. In these circumstances, plaintiff was entitled to examine a witness to prove the record of pension of Maan Singh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on a issue, the onus of proof, which was on him. However, every case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. The said is the ratio of Jagdev Singh's case(supra) also. In the present case, the plaintiff had led his evidence in affirmative. However, the defendant in her evidence has urged that she was not an illiterate and produced on record the evidence regarding her education. In these circumstances even at the rebuttal stage, plaintiff can be allowed to examine a witness to prove the record of pension of Maan Singh. It is the basic rule of law that whenever ends of justice demands, the procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve ends of justice rather than to scuffle the parties right at the trial stage and prevent them from leading complete evidence in support of their case,. If the parties are allowed to lead their respective evidence, the lis between the parties can be CR No.3729 of 2009 4 disposed of on merits and more effectively. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge December 01, 2009 arya