C. R. No. 6775 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 6775 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 14, 2010 Surinder Singh Ahluwalia .... Petitioner Vs. Atma Singh .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Surinder Singh Ahluwalia has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge order dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-4 moved by the defendant-petitioner for dispensing with the statement of Amar Singh (PW-2), who has been examined by plaintiff- respondent in rebuttal evidence. Respondent has filed against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.2,04,000/-. Respondent pleaded in the plaint about issuance of cheque C. R. No. 6775 of 2010 2 Ex.P-2 by defendant-petitioner. In the written statement, the defendant did not plead that the said cheque did not belong to him. The defendant- petitioner rather pleaded in the written statement that the cheque in question is being misused by the plaintiff-respondent in utter breach of faith and trust. However, in the witness-box, the defendant-petitioner stated for the first time that the aforesaid cheque did not belong to him. To rebut this evidence, the plaintiff-respondent, in his rebuttal evidence, has examined Amar Singh (PW-2) – an official of the bank with record of the bank to depict that the cheque book containing the aforesaid cheque had been issued by the bank to the defendant-petitioner. Examination-in-chief of Amar Singh (PW-2) has been recorded, whereas cross-examination was deferred on the request of counsel for the defendant and thereafter, application Annexure P-4 was moved by the defendant-petitioner alleging that the aforesaid evidence could not be led by the plaintiff at the stage of rebuttal evidence. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court by impugned order Annexure P-6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that affirmative evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was closed by court order and the evidence of Amar Singh (PW-2), being affirmative evidence, could not be led in rebuttal evidence. C. R. No. 6775 of 2010 3 I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein, although on first blush, the contention appears to be very forciful and attractive. As already noticed herein before, the plaintiff pleaded cheque Ex.P-2 to have been issued to him by the defendant. In the written statement, the defendant did not plead that the said cheque did not belong to him. The defendant rather pleaded that plaintiff was misusing the cheque in breach of faith and trust. This plea depicted that the cheque did belong to the defendant-petitioner. However, in the witness-box, the defendant- petitioner took a somersault and for the first time, came out with the statement that the cheque in question did not belong to him. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff has every right to lead rebuttal evidence to depict that the cheque Ex.P-2 belongs to the defendant-petitioner and for this purpose, plaintiff has examined Amar Singh (PW-2) in rebuttal evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that if statement of defendant- petitioner, that the cheque did not belong to him, is beyond the pleadings, the same would not be read in evidence being beyond pleadings. However, if the statement of defendant-petitioner to this effect is ignored, then apparently there would be no need for considering the testimony of Amar Singh (PW-2). Presently, the defendant stated in the witness-box that the cheque did not belong to him and therefore, the plaintiff has the right to lead rebuttal evidence to depict that the cheque belonged to the defendant. C. R. No. 6775 of 2010 4 For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. October 14, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE