Civil Revision No. 6173 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6173 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 5th , 2011 Harbhajan Singh .... Petitioner Versus Om Parkash .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the plaintiff under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 25.8.2011 (Annexure P6) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajnala whereby the application of the plaintiff for permission to examine a Hand Writing Expert in rebuttal evidence or in the alternative by way of additional evidence, has been dismissed. In the suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 19.6.2002, the plaintiff has led his evidence. After the defendant has concluded his evidence, this application has been filed by the plaintiff. The prayer has been Civil Revision No. 6173 of 2011 2 .. made for permission to examine a Hand Writing Expert to compare the signatures of the defendant on the agreement of sale with his signatures on other admitted documents. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Hemant Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the evidence was prayed to be allowed to be led either as rebuttal evidence or by way of additional evidence. According to him, the evidence sought to be led was the statement of a Hand Writing Expert and the interest of justice would have been served if this evidence, which was relevant to the facts in controversy in the suit, was permitted to be led. A procedure has been laid in Order XVIII CPC for leading of evidence by way of examination of witnesses. The right to begin is conferred on the plaintiff under Rule 1 of Order XVIII CPC. Under Rule 2, the party having right to begin would lead his evidence to prove the issues, the onus of which was on him. The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence. The right to the party beginning is then given to reply the whole case in general. The onus to prove the execution of the agreement of sale in question by the defendant in favour of plaintiff had been upon the plaintiff and he had to lead this evidence of Hand Writing Expert Civil Revision No. 6173 of 2011 3 .. on that issue in his affirmative evidence. He has no right to lead this evidence by way of rebuttal to the evidence of the defendant particularly when there is no issue touching this aspect of the case, the onus of which is on the defendant. Coming to the aspect of additional evidence, the provision contained in Order XVIII Rule 17-A CPC has been repealed on 1.7.2002. Now, the additional evidence can be led only under the provisions of section 151 CPC which confers upon the court inherent powers to make orders for serving the ends of justice. Additional evidence could be allowed to be produced, if the same was not within the knowledge of the party, seeking to lead the same now when he was leading his evidence or that despite due diligence, the same could not be produced at that time. No such case has been made out by the petitioner in his application. Therefore, learned trial court has been fully justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. Finding no ground to interfere with the impugned order, I dismiss the revision petition. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE October 5th, 2011 som