IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5974 of 2009(O&M) Date of Order: 15.10.2009 Darbara Singh @ Dalbara Singh .....Petitioner Versus Paramjit Singh and others .....Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA. Present: Mr. Rajesh Puri,Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** SABINA, J.(Oral) The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court: (i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP (ii) Whether no cause of action accrued to plaintirff to file the present suit? OPD. (iii) Whether plaint has not been verified as per law and is liable to be rejected? OPD (iv) Whether it is bad for cause of action? OPD (v) Relief. After the close of defendant's evidence, plaintiff-petitioner examined finger and handwritting expert in his rebuttal, appearing on the affidavit Ex.P-12. The plaintiff-petitioner was allowed to examine the expert in rebuttal vide order (Annexure P-15) dated 29.01.2009. Vide the impugned order, the defendants have been allowed to examine the handwritting expert to rebut the report submitted by the expert examined by the plaintiff. Hence, the present revision petition. Civil Revision No. 5974 of 2009(O&M) ..2.. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed. A perusal of the issues framed by the trial court reveals that the onus to prove issue No.1, as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for, was on the plaintiff-petitioner. The remaining three issues i.e issues no.2 to 4 are legal in nature. Since the plaintiff-petitioner was allowed to examine an expert in rebuttal qua issue no.1 with regard to which the onus was on the plaintiff, the learned trial court has rightly granted an opportunity to the defendants to examine an expert to rebut the report submitted by the handwritting expert examined by the plaintiff-petitioner. The paramount duty of the Court is to do justice. The rules of procedure and technicalities of law cannot stand in the way. Vide the impugned order, substantial justice has been done between the parties. The impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 15.10.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge