IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 14.12.2010 C.R.No.4750 of 2010 Mahabir Prasad ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Sharma, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 08.05.2010, whereby an application filed by the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and also for additional evidence was declined. It has been found by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff has closed his evidence and the case is now fixed for arguments after the defendants’ also closed its evidence. It has been also found that it was open to the plaintiff to summon the records for the purpose of cross-examination of the defendants. But having failed to do so, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence. The documents, which the plaintiff wants to lead in evidence were within his knowledge and there is no subsequent event for which the plaintiff may be entitled to lead evidence. C.R.No.4750 of 2010 The learned trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit land as tenant, if so its effect? OPP 2. Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land? OPP 3. Whether the suit is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special cost? OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and or cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC? OPD 8. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 9. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 10. Relief. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction alleging himself to be a tenant. It is the said fact, which forms part of Issue No.1. The plaintiff was required to lead his entire evidence in support of the fact that he is a tenant on the suit property. Such evidence was to be lead in affirmative. The onus of the Issue Nos.3 to 9 is though on the defendants, but the record which the plaintiff now wishes to examine is in respect of Issue No.1 and not on the other issues which are legal in nature. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to rebuttal evidence on an issue, the onus of which was on the plaintiff. Reference be made to Division Bench of this 2 C.R.No.4750 of 2010 Court in Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others 2007 A.I.R. (Punjab) 1. It was open to the plaintiff to summon the record while leading his evidence or for the purposes of cross-examination of the defendants’ witnesses. Having failed to do so, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to fill up the lacuna by leading evidence in rebuttal or by leading additional evidence. 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 exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. 14.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3