Rebuttal Evidence--Opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to lead his evidence in rebuttal on additional issue framed after closing his evidence in affirmative, has to be given.

Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 7.7.2015 and 27.7.2015 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application for producing the Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert in his rebuttal evidence as well as his application for additional evidence were dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders.

2. Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, passing of final judgment was stayed by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Kulwant Singh Vs. Chand Singh etc., [2015(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855 : 2014 LawHerald.Org 2335] : 2015 (3) PLR 129, Jaswinder Singh Vs. Rajwant Kaur and others, 2014(2) Law Herald 1138, CR No.203 of 2012 (Kartar Kaur Vs. Darshan Singh) decided on 25.7.2014, CR No.5628 of 2013 (Gurmeet Singh Vs. Satgur Singh and others) decided on 17.9.2013, CR No.701 of 2011 (Darshan Singh and others Vs. Baljinder Kaur and others), decided on 9.10.2013, CR No.2878 of 2013 (Naresh Kumari Vs. Sh.Ajmer Singh and another) decided on 20.11.2013, CR No.7143 of 2011 (Ranvir Singh Vs. M/s Dashmesh Traders, Kup Kalan) decided on 9.12.2013 and CR No.884 of 2014 (Hazur Singh Vs Chander Shekhar) decided on 5.2.2014, submits that once the defendants-respondents prayed for framing additional issue and it was framed at their instance as Issue No.5 (A) by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.3.2015 and defendants produced their evidence, with a view to discharge their onus on additional Issue No.5 (A), by examining Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert, the plaintiff would be entitled to lead his evidence in rebuttal. He further submits that at the time of leading evidence by the defendants on the above-said Issue No.5(A), there was no occasion for the plaintiff-petitioner to reserve his right under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short). However, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspects of the matter, while passing the impugned orders and the same are liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on two judgments of this Court in Ram Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and others, 2014 (2) PLR 536 and Avtar Singh and another Vs. Baldev Singh and others, 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 625, to contend, that the learned trial Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned orders and the same deserve to be upheld. He prays for dismissal of the instant revision petition.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court cannot be upheld. Revision petition deserves to be accepted for the following more than one reasons.

6. It has gone undisputed before this Court that whatever the issues were framed initially, plaintiff produced and closed his evidence. After closing the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner, additional issue came to be framed by the learned trial Court vide above-said order dated 23.3.2015 (Annexure P-5) at the instance of defendants-respondents. Defendants led their evidence on the additional issue because onus to prove this issue was on the defendants. Admittedly, this additional issue was not there when the plaintiff-petitioner was leading his evidence.

7. It is also not in dispute that while leading their evidence on additional Issue No.5 (A), defendants with a view to discharge their onus qua additional issue, examined Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert. Although, this expert examined by the defendants was cross-examined by the plaint