C.R. No. 2485 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 2485 of 2008 Date of decision: April 29,2009 Suraj Bhan son of Narata Ram ..Petitioner Versus Pagat Singh son of Mukand Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence to rebut the evidence of the defendant on issue No.2 has been declined. As per the averments made in this revision petition, petitioner filed a suit for recovery against the defendant-respondent on the basis of a pronote and receipt. The liability of the defendant was denied on the ground that he has not executed the aforesaid documents and the aforesaid documents were forged and fabricated and without consideration. On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and the parties went to trial on the issues so framed. Plaintiff-petitioner closed his evidence in the affirmative on 6.3.2007 and thereafter defendant led evidence in support of his case on the issues. Onus was upon him to prove issue No.5 which is as under:- “Whether the pronote and receipt is forged and fabricated and without consideration ?OPD After the defendant closed his evidence, petitioner made an application C.R. No. 2485 of 2008 2 for allowing him to lead evidence in rebuttal in the shape of expert and also to place on record a copy of the judgment passed in decree dated 14.9.2006 in the case titled as Karamjit Singh Versus Pargat Singh and others by way of additional evidence on the ground that the aforesaid evidence is necessary to rebut the evidence led by defendant on issue No.5. Vide impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the proposition of law as to the fact that plaintiff-petitioner was entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal on issue No.5 by way of expert witness. However, the objection of the counsel for the respondent is that petitioner cannot be allowed to prove judgment and decree dated 14.9.2006 passed in the case of Karamjit Singh Versus Pargat Singh and others as the same could have been proved only in the affirmative and not by way of additional evidence at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he be allowed only to lead evidence on issue No.5 by way of rebuttal by producing the expert witness. In view of the aforesaid position, order dated 17.3.2008 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is granted one opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence under issue No.5 by way of rebuttal evidence. Civil Revision stands disposed of. Parties are directed to be present before the trial Court on 20.5.2009. April 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE