Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Satbir Singh .. Petitioner v. Vasu Ram .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 25.3.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for taking the sample of thumb impression of the respondent-defendant for the purpose of comparison of the same with the agreement to sell, receipt with the thumb impression put on vakalatnama and before the court in his statement, was dismissed. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell filed by the petitioner against the respondent, where admittedly the entire evidence has already been led by both the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the respondent- defendant while appearing in the court had denied his signatures on the agreement to sell and the receipt, the same necessitated the filing of the application for summoning him for taking his sample of thumb impression and also comparison of his thumb impression as was put on the agreement to sell and receipt along with the sample of thumb impression put on vakalatnama and in court, as the same will clinch the issue. On a query by the court as to under what provision of law, the application was filed at the stage the suit, reply was that it was filed under Section 151 CPC. He further submitted that if the respondent is not satisfied with the report of the export,he will also have the opportunity to rebut that evidence. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. In a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, onus is on him to Civil Revision No. 2553 of 2010 [2] prove the execution of the document, which should have been discharged by leading positive evidence initially. After the respondent-defendant has already led his evidence, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence afresh to re-open the entire thing again. No issue was pointed out, the onus of which was on the respondent-defendant on which the petitioner-plaintiff could be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal, especially of the kind prayed for. After the entire evidence is over, merely considering what the respondent-defendant had produced on record, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be permitted to fill in the lacunae in the evidence already led. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 21.4.2010 mk