C.R.No.3372 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3372 of 2005 Date of Decision : 11.8.2009 Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sukhminder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. P.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Sandhir, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.5.2005, whereby the application for permission to lead rebuttal evidence, so as to examine an expert witness, was declined. The challenge in the suit is to the decree dated 19.1.1987. The plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid decree on the various grounds including that the compromise does not bear his thumb impression. The trial Court has framed numerous issues. The onus to prove the issue regarding validity of decree is on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has not examined any expert witness in his affirmative evidence. However, the defendants examined an expert witness in rebuttal. Thereafter, the plaintiff sought to produce an expert witness. The learned trial Court has rightly declined such application. C.R.No.3372 of 2005 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff is a person of unsound mind, therefore, an opportunity need to be given to the petitioner to lead the evidence of an expert to prove that the decree dated 19.1.1987 does not bear the thumb impression of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed the suit on the basis of such allegations as well. The plaintiff was aware of the controversy between them. Having failed to produce an expert witness in affirmative evidence, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine the aforesaid witness in rebuttal i.e. the view of Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others 2007 A.I.R. (Punjab) 1. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 11.8.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE