IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 557 of 2009 Date of decision : April 26, 2010 Vinod Kumar and another ....Petitioners versus Inder and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate, for the respondents L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiffs have filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 24.12.2008, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sonepat thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application Annexure P/2 for directing defendant no. 1 to give his specimen thumb impressions for comparison with his thumb impressions on impugned agreement and receipt. The petitioners filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that defendant no. 1 agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiffs vide agreement dated 14.5.2003 and entire sale consideration of Rs 60,000/- was paid to defendant no. 1 who executed agreement and receipt for the same and possession of the suit land was delivered to the plaintiffs. Since the defendants threatened to interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction. Civil Revision No. 557 of 2009 -2- In written statement, the defendants denied the aforesaid agreement as well as payment of sale consideration to defendant no. 1 as well as the delivery of possession to plaintiffs. Various other pleas were also raised. Plaintiffs led their affirmative evidence. Thereafter the defendants led their evidence. It was thereafter that the plaintiffs moved application Annexure P/2 seeking direction to defendant no. 1 to give his specimen thumb impressions for comparison. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The onus to prove the agreement and receipt pleaded by the plaintiffs was on them. Consequently, they should have led evidence to prove the same in affirmative evidence. However, the plaintiffs want to lead this evidence at the stage of rebuttal evidence which cannot be permitted. It is well settled by now by catena of judgments of this Court that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues of which onus is on the plaintiffs. The trial court has, therefore, taken correct view observing that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to lead this evidence at the stage of rebuttal evidence. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is completely without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 26, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'