IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.07.2010 C.R.No.7018 of 2008 M/s Balwant Rai Madan Lal ...Petitioners Versus Vishwamittar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Arjun Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 09.12.2008, whereby an application for permission to examine hand-writing expert in rebuttal evidence or in alternative as additional evidence, was declined. Learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has led his evidence in affirmative as also the defendant. The plaintiff had an opportunity to examine the hand-writing expert in his affirmative evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in a suit for recovery based upon entries in the bahis of the plaintiff, the defendant admits certain signatures in the account-books in the written statement, but while appearing into witness box, the defendant denied certain signatures in the account-books. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled C.R.No.7018 of 2008 to examine hand-writing expert witness to prove the signatures of the defendant on the entries, which are denied by him. A perusal of para 5 of the written statement filed by the defendant shows that the defendant has denied the borrowing of money in cash on the dates alleged by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff has prepared forged and fabricated account-books and the signatures, if any, on the same are also forged. In view of the said categorical stand of the defendant in the written statement, it was for the plaintiff to lead his entire evidence in affirmative including the evidence of hand-writing expert. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to examine a hand-writing expert witness in rebuttal. In respect of permission to lead such evidence as additional evidence, suffice it to say that it is not the case of the plaintiff that in spite of due diligence, he could not examine the hand-writing expert witness, when he was leading his evidence in affirmative. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 23.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2