Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: - Challenge in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner-plaintiff, is to the order dated 03.03.2011, whereby the Civil Judge(Jr.Divn), Panipat has dismissed the application to lead evidence on issues No.2 & 2-A, in rebuttal, in the suit instituted on 03.01.2004 or in the alternative, as additional evidence. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is that since the onus of issue No.2-A was on the plaintiff, he could not lead evidence in rebuttal. Reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in Surjit Singh Vs. Jagtar Singh, [2006(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3199 (DB)] : 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537 and Jagdev Singh & others Vs. Darshan Singh & others, [2007(3) Law Herald (P&H) 1854 (DB)] : 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 794.

2. In order to decide whether the said order is justified or not, it would necessarily entail delving into the facts as to what was the dispute between the parties before coming to the finding whether the Trial Court was right in placing reliance upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court, referred above.

3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed the suit, being daughter of Chandro Devi against Raj Kumar, defendant No.1, son of sister, namely, Barfi Devi, who is now represented by the LRs. The other children of her sister were arrayed as defendants No.2 & 3. The dispute pertains to the estate owned by Chandro Devi since she had no male issue. It was alleged the elder sister, Barfi Devi was treated as a mother after the death of Chandro Devi in 1980, in whom the plaintiff had full confidence. Barfi Devi had been always giving her half share of income after every 6 months and after her death in 1998 and the defendants succeeded to her estate who also continued to give half share but after Rabi, 2003, have stopped giving the said share. It was averred that a gift deed dated 16.02.1968 had been got executed in favour of Barfi Devi from her mother, Chandro Devi by playing fraud and even the revenue entries had been recorded. The mother never intended to gift her entire property to one daughter and the witnesses would have been of the Village Sanoli Khurd. The gift deed allegedly contain the thumb impression of the plaintiff herself and she had never put any such thumb impression and the gift deed was a result of fraud and collusion. The factum of Chandro Devi having executed the gift deed had also been disputed and that she had not thumb marked the said gift deed and it had no legal value and the same was only a paper transaction as the petitionerplaintiff continued to get her share from the said land. It was further alleged that some other person had stood in place of Chandro Devi and necessary revenue entries had also been made on the basis of this fraudulent gift deed and the plaintiff being illiterate lady, had never doubted the integrity of her elder sister and cause of action arose only in the year 2003. Resultantly, the suit was filed on 03.01.2004.

4. The defendants resisted the suit by taking various pleas that the suit was time-barred and the plaintiff herself was a witness to the said gift deed and had knowledge from the very beginning of the fact of Barfi Devi coming into the possession of the property and the suit had only been filed with mala fide intention and the plaintiff was estopped by her own act and conduct. Barfi Devi had resided with her mother, Chandro Devi along with her son and served her in the old age and she had died on 10.04.1997 and not in 1998, as alleged. No particulars of fraud and collusion had been given and it was wrong that Chandro Devi, the mother intended to gift the entire property in favour of Barfi Devi. The plaintiff had lived with her inlaws and never served her mother and due to the service of Barfi Devi, the gift deed had been executed in the presence of the witnesses including the plaintiff and mutation had also been entered and sanctioned in her favour on that basis and Barfi Devi had co