C.R. No.3024 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3024 of 2010 Date of Decision: 1.7.2010 Charanjeet Kaur and another ……Petitioners VERSUS Surjit Kaur ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioners. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. As per office report, respondent has been served through learned trial Court’s Counsel. None appears for the respondent. 2. Present petition is filed invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 6.3.2010 passed by the learned trial Court thereby permitting the plaintiff to examine Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, hand writing and finger print expert in rebuttal. C.R. No.3024 of 2010 -2- 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the plaintiff had already examined PW5 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, hand writing and finger expert and thereafter plaintiff can not be per- mitted to examine another handwriting and finger print expert in re- buttal after the evidence of the defendant. He further states that sec- ond application to examine handwriting and finger print expert is not maintainable. 4. Since, respondent has already been served as per the of- fice report through learned trial Court’s Counsel and none is present on his behalf, case is heard exparte against him. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that plaintiff has produced all his witnesses and already examined handwriting and finger print expert as PW5 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. In the opinion of this Court, since plaintiff did not reserve his right to lead his evidence after the evi- dence of the defendant on some issues at the beginning as required by Order 18 Rule 3 C.P.C., hence, no permission can be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal after evidence of the defendant. Moreover, once plaintiff had already examined PW5 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, handwriting and finger print expert, there seems to be no need and justification to examine another handwriting and finger print expert as prayed. Order impugned passed by learned trial Court is against the provision of Order 18 Rule 3 C.P.C. and seems to be unjustified and it does not stand in the scrutiny of law. C.R. No.3024 of 2010 -3- 5. Hence, the petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 6.3.2010 is quashed. 6. Learned trial Court is directed to conclude the hearing of the trial at the earliest without granting any unnecessary adjourn- ments to either of the party. ( ALOK SINGH ) 01st July, 2010 JUDGE ashish