Civil Revision No.5053 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5053 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:12.08.2010 N.D.Rahi .... petitioner Versus Baldev Singh & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.S.S.Siao,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL): As per the averments made in this petition, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent Baldev Singh for recovery was decreed against Dinesh Kumar-respondent No.2. The petitioner filed objections in execution of the aforesaid decree. The Executing Court framed the issues in the aforesaid execution proceedings which are as under: 1. Whether the houses attached are owned by the objector N.D.Rahi and not liable to be attached and execution amount cannot be recovered by way of sale of these houses?OPO 2. Whether the goods mentioned at Sr.No.3 to 10 of application dated 05.02.2003 are not liable to be attached as same belong to objector N.D.Rahi?OPO 3. Relief Civil Revision No.5053 of 2010(O & M) 2 Thereafter, petitioner led evidence and by statement dated 30.03.2007 closed his evidence in the affirmative. Petitioner moved an application before the trial Court seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of producing certain documents. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.07.2010 holding that the petitioner had no right to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues on which the onus of proof was upon him. Since, onus of proof of both issues was upon the petitioner, therefore he was not entitled to lead the rebuttal evidence. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are hand maid for the administration of justice and they be construed, liberally. It is the contention of the petitioner that the document sought to be produced by way of rebuttal are very necessary for the just decision of the case and go to the root of the case. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. It is well settled that under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC the plaintiff had a right to lead evidence in rebuttal only on those issues on which the onus of proof is on the defendant. Since, in the present case, onus to prove the issues in question was upon the plaintiff-petitioner himself, it was for him to prove the aforesaid issues while leading evidence in the affirmative. Respondent-decree holder has led evidence only to rebut the evidence produced by the petitioner in the affirmative. The petitioner has no right to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues on which the onus of proof was upon him. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 12.08.2010. Civil Revision No.5053 of 2010(O & M) 3 neenu