Civil Revision No. 7195 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7195 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision. 23.11.2011 Pawan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus M/s Burmah Rice & General Mills Cheeka and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.27980-CII of 2011 Application is allowed. The petitioner is exempted from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P4. CR No.7195 of 2011 In a suit for mandatory injunction for rendition of accounts and dissolution of respondent no.1 M/s Burmah Rice and General Mills Cheeka Tehsil Guhla, the plaintiff Pawan Kumar (petitioner before me) had filed an application for permission to produce handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal to rebut the evidence of defendant no.5. The Civil Revision No. 7195 of 2011 --2-- said application has been dismissed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Guhla vide order dated 15.11.2011 which is challenged by the plaintiff by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff had claimed in his application that the defendants with a view to defraud him had prepared forged, false fictitious and fabricated documents to serve their own purpose. It is further averred that Bhagwan Dass, defendant had even denied his signatures on the dissolution deed, executed between the partners of defendant no.2. They have also claimed that they have settled the accounts including the share of the plaintiff. In the said suit, some defendants moved an application for additional evidence by producing handwriting and fingerprint expert for the purpose of comparing the signatures of Bhagwan Dass on the dissolution deed. The said application was allowed. Mr. Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert was produced, who was cross-examined by Shri R.P. Vashisht the expert of Shri Bhagwan Dass, defendant. The plaintiff has claimed that he has not availed the opportunity to rebut the evidence produced by the defendants inter-se. It is claimed that there is a specific issue framed in this suit requiring the plaintiff to prove that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction by way of rendition of accounts, which relates to the documents produced by the defendants including the dissolution deed. Hence, it is prayed that permission be granted to the plaintiff to produce handwriting and fingerprint expert to rebut the evidence of the defendants. Civil Revision No. 7195 of 2011 --3-- It is further averred that if the said permission is not granted , the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury to his mind, reputation and property. The application is opposed by the defendants. The plaintiff is denied to have any right to examine the handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Guhla has dismissed the application vide the impugned order. I have heard Shri J.K. Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to page no.6 of the paper book where in para no.3 he has mentioned the issues framed in this suit. According to him, the issue “Whether the suit has been filed within limitation ?OPP” has been wrongly reproduced in the grounds of revision. According to him, the onus to prove this issue is on the defendants. According to him, the evidence of handwriting and fingerprint expert would be required to be led on this issue. He has also submitted that in the alternative, question of maintainability is also involved in this suit and the plaintiff would be required to lead the evidence of handwriting and fingerprint expert on the said issue. The paper book shows the onus of the issue of limitation to be there on the plaintiff. Even if the objection regarding limitation is raised by the defendant, it is the plaintiff, who has to prove his suit to be Civil Revision No. 7195 of 2011 --4-- within limitation. Even the question of maintainability of the suit in the present form or otherwise has to be proved by the plaintiff. So, onus of all issues in this suit is on the plaintiff and there is no issue, the onus of which is on the defendants, on which any evidence in rebuttal could be led by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held to have any right to lead evidence of handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal. In these circumstances, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order justifying interference with the same. Hence the revision petition is dismissed. 23.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE