Civil Revision No. 5688 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5688 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Sukhbir Singh .... Petitioner Versus Mandeep and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.S.K. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a petition brought by Sukhbir Singh, petitioner under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.08.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide which the objections raised by the petitioner-defendants against examination of the mother of the plaintiff in rebuttal evidence has been rejected. In the suit brought by Mandeep for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, the plaintiff desired to put his mother in the witness box at the stage of rebuttal evidence. Learned counsel for the defendants raised objection to her examination saying that she could not be examined in rebuttal evidence. According to him, she was required to be examined by the plaintiff in his affirmative evidence. Civil Revision No. 5688 of 2011 --2-- On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that the defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that father of the plaintiff was not the son of defendant no.1 and as such the plaintiff is not grandson of defendant no.1. Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has observed that the plaintiff can lead evidence in rebuttal only on those issues, the onus to prove which was upon the defendants. It was further observed that onus to prove the issues regarding maintainability of the suit and cause of action with the plaintiff is on the defendants and the plaintiff is well within his rights to examine his mother to prove that he is grandson of defendant no.1. The plea of the defendants was, therefore, rejected and the case was adjourned for examination of the mother of the plaintiff on the issues, the onus of which was on the defendants. It has been clarified in the order by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak that the evidence of the mother shall be permissible only to the extent of this point and not in order to prove the case of the plaintiff on other issues, the onus to prove which was on him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant has brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. S.K. Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 5688 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff was examining his mother only on the issues the onus to prove which was upon him. According to him, the question of maintainability and cause of action did not require any evidence by the defendant and no evidence could be led in rebuttal on those issues. Learned trial court while allowing the prayer for permission to examine the mother of the plaintiff in rebuttal evidence has clarified that her evidence would be limited to the issues, the onus to prove which was upon the defendants. If at the time of examination any question beyond that is asked, the same may be objected to by the defendants and would not be allowed by the court. I do not find any wrong to have been committed by learned trial court in permitting the mother of the plaintiff to be put in the witness box in rebuttal evidence. Therefore, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the revision petition is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh