CR No. 3582 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3582 of 2010 Date of Decision : 27.07.2010 Raj Kumar Sharma .......... Petitioner Versus Siri Ram Transport Finance Company Ltd. & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.5.2010, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge ( Sr.Div.), Rohtak, vide which the application moved by the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal stands declined. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the respondent / defendants to hand over the truck, which was said to have been illegally taken by the respondent No.1, even though the petitioner was paying the installments of loan regularly. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for Rs. 15000/- per month with effect from CR No. 3582 of 2010 -2- 18.5.98 as prayed for ?OPP 3. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Relief.” After the evidence of the petitioner, as well as the defendant was closed, the petitioner moved an application, that he wanted to prove on record letter dated 30.6.1998 written by defendant No.1, to the RTO, Rohtak requesting him not to issue duplicate registration certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner prayed, that the letter dated 30.6.1998 was required to be proved, in view of the stand taken by the defendants in their written statement, that they were not sure whether the letter dated 30.6.1998 was issued by the company or not. The learned trial Court, found that after the letter dated 30.6.1998, the parties had entered into settlement dated 6.7.1998, and that the case set up by the defendants was that the action to sell the truck was taken as per the settlement dated 6.7.1998. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that proving of letter dated 30.6.1998, was totally irrelevant, and not necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the letter dated 30.6.1998 was necessary to prove, that the Company even prior to the settlement dated 6.7.1998 were taking steps to debar the petitioner from taking over the truck or get the necessary documents prepared from the RTO, therefore, the document was necessary to prove case of the plaintiff / petitioner. CR No. 3582 of 2010 -3- On consideration, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, for the reason, that onus to prove the right of the petitioner to get the decree for mandatory injunction was on the plaintiff / petitioner, therefore, he was not entitled to lead any evidence in rebuttal to prove said issue, in view of settled law. Even otherwise, when the petitioner was paying the installments of loan regularly, therefore, as to whether the letter dated 30.6.1998 by respondent No.1 was written or not is immaterial to decide the controversy between the parties, specially in view of admitted fact that the parties had entered in a settlement on 6.7.1998. There being no illegality in the order, it does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 27.07.2010 (Vinod K. Sharma ) 'sp' JUDGE