In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No.1722 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.3.2011 Gurdev Singh and another ......petitioners Versus Raj Kaur and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.K.R.Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that she was owner of the land in dispute on the basis of decree dated 16.11.1994. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court ( as reproduced in para 3 of the petition):- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for in head note of plaint ? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession as prayed for in head note of plaintiff ? OPP 3. Whether judgment and decree dated 16.11.1994 passed by the Court of Sh.a.S.Katari, Sub Judge Ist Class, Zira is against the provisions of indian Registration Act and Transfer of Property Act ? OPD 4. Whether suit of plaintiff is time barred ? OPD 5. Whether suit is not maintainable ? OPD Civil Revision No.1722 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 6. Whether suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 7. Relief.” Vide the impugned order the plaintiff has been allowed to examine an expert in her rebuttal evidence to compare the signatures of Ram Singh on the written statement and vakalatnama in the earlier suit with his standard signatures. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. The plaintiff, while leading her affirmative evidence examined the witnesses to prove the passing of the judgment and decree in question. No specific plea was taken by the defendants in their written statement (Annexure P-2) that written statement and vakalatnama were not signed by Ram Singh in the earlier suit. Rather the plea in the written statement is that the decree dated 16.11.1994 was a result of fraud and undue influence on Ram Singh The defendants while leading their evidence examined an expert who gave his opinion that the standard signatures of Ram Singh did not match with the signatures on the written statement and vakalatnama filed in the earlier suit. Now to rebut the opinion of the handwriting expert examined by the defendants, plaintiff wants to examine an expert while leading her rebuttal evidence. In these circumstances, learned trial court had rightly allowed the plaintiff to examine an expert in her rebuttal evidence so as to rebut the report given by the Civil Revision No.1722 of 2011 (O&M) -3- expert examined by the defendants. The impugned order does not call for any interference. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 14, 2011 anita