CR No. 4433 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 4433 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 Preeti ....Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. M.K. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (SD), Rewari, whereby plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on Issues No.6, 8 and 9. The trial Court while permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues No.6, 8 and 9 has observed as under:- “After perusing the pleadings of the parties, it reveals that the plaintiffs want to examine the witnesses as per evidence disclosed by defendants on issues No.6, 8 and 9. The evidence CR No. 4433 of 2010 2 produced by the defendants can be rebutted as the plaintiffs have no alternate to produce the evidence in rebuttal. Further no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the proposed witnesses are examined by the plaintiffs in rebuttal evidence, hence, objections raised by the counsel for the defendants recording the witnesses are not sustainable and application moved by the plaintiffs for producing the evidence in rebuttal is hereby allowed.” Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae by way of producing evidence in rebuttal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others, reported in 2007(2) Latest Judicial Reports 23 as well as the judgement in the case of Pritpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2010(1) Law Herald (Punjab and Haryana) 28. In the matter of Pritpal Singh (supra), this Court has observed that plaintiff – revisionist – petitioner could lead evidence in rebuttal only in respect of the issues of which the onus lay upon the defendant. Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh’s case (supra), in paragraph 15 has observed that “in our opinion Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff.” In the present case, undisputedly onus to prove Issues No.6, 8 and 9 was on defendant. Defendant has led evidence on Issues No.6, 8 and 9. Hence, plaintiff has every right to lead evidence in rebuttal on Issues No.6, 8 and 9. CR No. 4433 of 2010 3 No illegality or manifest error of law is pointed out. Petition is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 20.07.2010 sk.