C.R. 518 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. 518 of 2008 Date of decision: 10.12.2009 Richpal Singh petitioner vs Bhagwant Bhajan Singh & Ors Respondent Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal,Sr.Advocate with Mr. RS Chahal, Advocate. Mr. OP Hoshiarpuri, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide impugned order dated 3.1.2008, an application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner to lead rebuttal evidence and to produce witnesses on issue Nos. 5 to 8 stands dismissed. The trial court while dismissing the application has observed that the application was moved by the plaintiff- petitioner three months after the closing of the evidence by the defendant and that the case is old and history sheeted one and no particular issue for rebuttal arises. Another reason for dismissing the application, as given by the trial court, is that the plaintiff had not reserved his right for rebuttal when the evidence was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that defendant No.1 in the counter claim and the written statement has alleged himself to be gaddi Nashin, Mohatmin and Muntazim of Shri Nirmal Takhat Talab Budha Sahib Ram Dass on the basis of Will dated 10.6.1973 C.R. 518 of 2008 2 executed by deceased Baba Jaswant Singh in favour of Bhagwant Bhajan Singh and on the basis of the said counter claim, a specific issue No.5 has been framed, which reads as follows:- “ Whether the defendant No.1 is the Gaddi Nashin, Mohtmin and Muntazim of Shri Nirmal Takhat Talab Baba Budha Sahib Ram Dass and the suit land he is owner in possession of the suit land as alleged? OPD. Onus to prove the above said issue is on the defendant. It is the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal pertaining to the issues, onus of which lies upon the defendant. Whether the plaintiff is required to reserve his right to controvert the evidence of the defendant on issue of rebuttal is settled by the judgment of this Court in Naranjan Singh vs Ajaib Singh and another 20067(2) RCR (civil) 281, laying down that there is no requirement of any law that plaintiff- petitioner is required to reserve his right to controvert evidence of the defendant on an issue of rebuttal. It is apparent from the order of the trial court that the evidence of the plaintiff had been closed by order. In view of the said fact also there was no opportunity for counsel for the plaintiff to make a statement before the court to close the evidence, reserving the right to lead rebuttal evidence. Issue No.5 has been framed on the basis of counter claim, raised by the defendant- respondent. The evidence of the defendant- respondent has already been completed. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the plaintiff seeks to produce the affidavit of Charanjit Kaur, mother of defendant No.1, which is alleged to have been executed on 12.8.2006 wherein she has made certain depositions pertaining to issue No.1. The trial court seems to have committed an error in declining the petitioner an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal in context to an C.R. 518 of 2008 3 issue, onus of which lies upon the defendant. The anxiety of the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the history sheet case is appreciated but at the same time the basic principles of fair trial and fair opportunity to be granted to the parties to produce their evidence cannot be ignored. In view of the above,the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 3.1.2008 is hereby set aside and the trial court is directed to give two opportunities within a period of one month to produce the entire evidence in rebuttal. It is made clear that it will be open to the trial court , at any stage, to stop the production of any evidence, which is not in the shape of rebuttal evidence, when produced. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 16.1.2010. On the said date, the trial court will give a short date to the plaintiff- petitioner to produce the evidence in rebuttal. If need be, another opportunity will be given within a period of one month to produce the entire rebuttal evidence. December 10 ,2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE