Rebuttal evidence-Once petitioner had closed his evidence in affirmative and in the evidence led by the respondent/defendant, some documents were produced to discharge the burden lay on it, the petitioner has every right to rebut those document by leading rebuttal evidence.

1. The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated August 13, 2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leading rebuttal evidence was dismissed.

2. Notice in the petition was issued on August 27, 2007 by Dasti process for September 17, 2007. As per office report, service of the respondent was complete. However, no one appeared for the respondent on the date fixed. Even on November 27, 2007 and today as well no one has appeared for the respondent. Accordingly, petition is taken up for hearing for final disposal.

3. Briefly, the facts, as stated in the petition, are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,71,405/- against the respondent/defendant which included unpaid amount of various service benefits payable to the petitioner at the time of resignation from employment including a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- given as loan by the petitioner/plaintiff to the respondent/defendant. The allegations made by the petitioner in the plaint were denied by the respondent/ defendant with the plea that the amount of loan had already been returned back to the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant? OPP

2. Whether the suit is within the limitation? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed? OPD

4. Whether the plaint has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court-fees and jurisdiction? OPD

5. Whether the plaintiff has not impleaded the proper and necessary party in the present suit?

6. Relief?

4. After the petitioner/plaintiff closed his evidence in affirmative, the respondent/defendant in his evidence produced documents Ex. DW 2/4 and Ex. DW 2/5 in the form of receipt for the alleged repayment of loan amount to the petitioner/plaintiff. It is these documents, which the petitioner/plaintiff sought to controvert by leading the evidence in rebuttal. However, learned trial Court did not find merit in the application and rejected the same for the reason that the substance of the documents were already mentioned in the written statement and further in cross-examination of the plaintiff on January 31, 2005 these documents were duly confronted to him and at that time, the petitioner had the opportunity to controvert the same, accordingly he is not entitled to any fresh opportunity to controvert these documents by leading evidence in rebuttal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once petitioner had closed his evidence in affirmative and in the evidence led by the respondent/defendant, some documents were produced to discharge the burden lay on it, the petitioner has every right to rebut those document by leading rebuttal evidence including by a report of the handwriting/document expert as after leading of the evidence by the respondent/defendant discharging his burden, the onus had again shifted on the petitioner/ plaintiff to prove his case. He has relied upon the judgments in Kashmir Kaur v. Bachan Kaur, 2000 (2) Civil Court Cases 375 (P and H); M/s. Punjab Steel Corporation, Batala v. M. S. T. C. Limited, Calcutta, 2002 (1) Civil Court Cases 503 : (AIR 2001 P&H 331); Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 115 : (AIR 2007 P&H 1) and Kewal Singh v. Jagjit Singh, 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 658 (P and H).

6. A perusal of various issues framed by the learned trial Court shows that onus of issue No. 1, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount along with interest from the defendant, is on the petitioner/plaintiff whereas onus of issue No. 3, as to whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and the suit is liable to be dismissed, is on the defendant. This issue was framed w