Civil Revision No.4378 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.4378 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2011 Jagdev Singh and another .....Petitioners v. Hardip Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 9.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jagraon, vide which application filed by petitioners-plaintiffs for permitting them to compare the disputed thumb impression of defendant no.1 on the agreement dated 3.11.2002 with the thumb impression appearing on the sale deed executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.2, was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit was filed by petitioners-plaintiffs for declaration that they are owners and in possession of land in dispute on the basis of agreement of exchange deed dated 3.11.2002 entered between the parties. Respondents- defendants contested the suit and denied having executed any such exchange deed. Rather the plea has been taken that the same is a result of Civil Revision No.4378 of 2011(O&M) -2- fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. Issues were framed. Evidence was adduced by both the parties. However, when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, the present application was filed by petitioners-plaintiffs for permission to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the disputed thumb impression of defendant on the exchange deed with his admitted thumb impression, which was declined. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- plaintiffs that onus to prove issue no.2 that the alleged agreement is a result of fraud, misrepresentation and forgery is upon respondent-defendant and hence, petitioners-plaintiffs are having right to adduce evidence in rebuttal on the said issue. It is pertinent to reproduce Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:- “3.Evidence where several issues.- Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” Though onus to prove issue no.2 was on respondent-defendant, and however onus to prove the main issue, i.e., issue no.1 is upon petitioners-plaintiffs. Case of petitioners-plaintiffs is based on alleged exchange deed executed by defendants in their favour, which has been denied by the defendants. Petitioners-plaintiffs already led evidence in affirmative to prove execution of the said alleged exchange deed. Hence, Civil Revision No.4378 of 2011(O&M) -3- when he has already led evidence to prove execution of the alleged exchange deed, it cannot be said that they are having right to adduce evidence in rebuttal for proving the same fact. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 21.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge