Civil Revision No. 5941 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5941 of 2011 Date of decision. 26.09.2011 Smt. Panmeshwari Devi .... Petitioner Versus Ram Narain and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Smt. Panmeshwari Devi, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 13.09.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, vide which the application filed by her for summoning Nand Lal as additional witness in rebuttal evidence has been dismissed. Lakhmi Ram, forefather of the plaintiff was having three sons named Nand Lal, Kali Ram and Chander Bhan. He was having two houses in village Khanpur Kalan. By way of family settlement, possession of one house was given to Chander Bhan and the other house was given to Kali Ram, husband of the plaintiff/petitioner and Civil Revision No. 5941 of 2011 --2-- Nand Lal. Subsequently by way of oral partition of the aforesaid houses, southern portion of the house came into the share of Kali Ram, whereas northern portion fell into the share of Nand Lal. The stairs, which were between the aforesaid houses, came to the share of Kali Ram and since then the petitioner is using the same. Nand Lal shifted to Gohana in the year 1978 and had given his portion of the house to the respondents for their use. However, they were using the other stairs from the side of verandah for going to the roof of their house. In the absence of the plaintiff, on 27.08.2006 the respondents had broken up the lock of the stairs and tried to encroach upon the said stairs on which the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of the stairs on the plea that she is exclusive owner in possession thereof. The plaintiff then moved an application for examination of Nand Lal in rebuttal evidence. It has been claimed in the application that examination of Nand Lal was necessary for proper adjudication of controversy between the parties. The application was opposed by the defendants. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri Vishal Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Civil Revision No. 5941 of 2011 --3-- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendants in their evidence have even denied themselves to be acquainted with Nand Lal. According to him, the plaintiff is not going to add anything by examining Nand Lal. He has submitted that the defendants have changed their stand in the evidence to counter which examination of Nand Lal is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted at the bar that there is no issue framed in this case with onus of proof on the defendants on which Nand Lal may be examined in rebuttal. If it is so, then the onus to prove that the plaintiff is exclusive owner in possession of the stair case was on the plaintiff and she was to lead evidence in affirmative about the same. While leading her evidence in the affirmative, she could examine Nand Lal, if his statement was relevant to the point in controversy. However, she cannot be allowed to examine Nand Lal in rebuttal evidence as no evidence can be allowed to be led to rebut the evidence of the defendants. For these reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the well reasoned order of learned trial court. The revision petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 26.09.2011 dinesh