The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party does not have the right to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues where the onus of proof is on them, as per Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC and relevant case law.

Ram Chand Gupta, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside order dated 24.4.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kaithal, Haryana, Annexure P1, vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant for not permitting him to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of producing hand writing/finger print expert was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of revision petition are that respondent-plaintiffs filed a civil suit against petitioner-defendant for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 1.9.2004. Petitioner-defendant filed written statement as no such agreement as relied upon by respondent -plaintiffs was ever entered into and that alleged agreement to sell is void being not executed by petitioner-defendant. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by learned trial court on 12.12.2006:-

"1) Whether the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs vide agreement to sell dated 1.9.04 for a sale consideration of Rs.5,55,000/- per acre as alleged? OPP

2) Whether the defendant had received the amount money of Rs.2,50,000/- from the plaintiffs on 1.9.04 vide receipt? OPP

3) Whether the defendant had agreed to execute the sale deed on or before 20.5.05? OPP

4) Whether the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform part of contract, if so its effect? OPP

5) Whether the suit of plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

6) Whether the civil court have no jurisdiction to try and decide this suit? OPD

7) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and or cause of action to file the suit ?OPD

8) Whether the suit is bad for want of ad valorum court fees? OPD

9) Relief."

4. Case was fixed for evidence of respondent-plaintiffs. After availing several opportunities six witnesses were examined by respondent -plaintiffs and thereafter evidence was closed. Petitioner-defendant also closed evidence on 3.1.2009 and the case was adjourned for arguments.

5. However, later on respondent-plaintiffs have sought to produce hand-writing/finger print expert to prove alleged signatures of petitionerdefendant on the agreement. Hence, an application was filed by present petitioner-defendant for not permitting the plaintiffs to lead the evidence in rebuttal. However, vide impugned order dated 24.4.2010, the said application of the petitioner-defendant was dismissed and respondent plaintiffs were permitted to examine the hand-writing/finger print expert. Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitionerdefendant that onus to prove that alleged agreement to sell was executed by petitioner-defendant in favour of respondent-plaintiffs was on respondent plaintiffs, as is clear from the issues framed as reproduced above and hence, it is contended that respondent-plaintiffs should have examined the hand writing/finger print expert in affirmative evidence and that they are having no right to lead such evidence in rebuttal.

7. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs that it was in cross-examination of petitionerdefendant that he denied his signatures on.the agreement and hence, respondent-plaintiffs want to examine hand-writing/finger print expert to disprove the same.

8. A careful perusal of the impugned order passed by learned trial Court shows that even learned trial Court has mentioned in the order that argument of counsel for respondent-plaintiffs that it was in the cross-examination of defendant that he denied his signatures on the agreement for the first time cannot be believed as defendant had specifically denied the same in the written statement itself and that onus wa