C.R. No. 6020 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6020 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.9.2011 Harnek Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Kewal Singh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. S.S. Sudan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. SPS Isher, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 22.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) whereby an application filed by him for correction of issue No.2 was dismissed by the learned trial court. 2. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,60,000/- on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 25.7.2005. The defendant in the written statement alleged that the pronote and receipt was a result of manipulation and it was forged, fabricated and without consideration. 3. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- “(I) Whether the defendant took a cash loan of C.R. No. 6020 of 2010 -2- Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff on the interest @ 1½% per months on 25.7.2005 and executed Pronote & Receipt in lieu thereof?OPP (II) If issue no.1 is proved whether the Pronote & Receipt in question are forged, fabricated and without consideration? OPP (III) Relief.” 4. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for correction of issue No.2. The said application was declined by the trial court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that the defendant- respondent had denied the execution of the pronote and receipt and further alleged that the same was result of forgery and fabrication. According to the learned counsel, in such a situation the trial court had placed onus of the said issue on the plaintiff as is evident from a perusal of issue No. 2 as reproduced above which is legally unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent very fairly accepted that the onus of issue No.2 had been wrongly placed on the plaintiff and made a statement that it may be treated to have been placed on the defendant and accordingly it be changed from OPP to OPD. He further submitted that no evidence is required to be led by him on issue No.2. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 22.10.2009 is modified to the extent that onus of issue No.2 placed on the plaintiff shall be read as and be taken to be that on the defendant. Since the defendant does not wish to lead any evidence on this issue, the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. With the above C.R. No. 6020 of 2010 -3- modification and observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 16, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE