Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4427
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Rashpinder Singh - Appellant
Versus
Seema - Respondent
Civil Revision No. 1782 of 2015
Decided On : 15-10-2018
Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Gaurav Saini, Advocate, for the Respondent
A plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of an issue for which the onus was on the plaintiff.
Headnote:
Rebuttal Evidence - Specific Performance - The court dismissed the revision petition assailing the order of the trial court, which refused permission to summon the record of a gift deed and engage a handwriting expert for comparison of signatures. The plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the agreement to sell, and the plaintiff's attempt to lead rebuttal evidence was not justified under settled legal principles.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement in the written statement. The plaintiff failed to prove due execution of the agreement, and the defendant presented evidence to show that the signatures on the agreement were not hers.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no justification to interfere with the trial court's order, as the plaintiff's attempt to lead rebuttal evidence was not justified under settled legal principles.
Issues: The issues involved included the execution of the agreement to sell and the admissibility of rebuttal evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the settled legal principle that a plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of an issue for which the onus was on the plaintiff, and found no justification to interfere with the trial court's order.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Petitioner has assailed the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Amabla and one more order of even date vide which application for permission to summon the record of gift deed dated 02.07.2008 and to engage handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of the respondent on the agreement to sell and gift deed was dismissed.
2. The basic issue involved in the present case is that the suit for specific performance was filed on the basis of agreement to sell dated 29.08.2008. In the written statement filed by the defendant, plea of denial was taken in respect of execution of agreement to sell.
3. While leading affirmative evidence, the plaintiff did not adduce any evidence to prove due execution of agreement to sell removing all doubts with regard to the plea taken by the defendant in the written statement. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed and in the evidence of the defendant, she has proved handwriting and fingerprint expert to show that the signatures appearing on the agreement to sell are not that of defendant. Thereafter plaintiff sought to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence.
4. It is a settled principle of law that the plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the plaintiff himself. Reference can be made to Surjit Singh and others vs. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) P&H 537 (DB); Jagdev Singh and others vs. Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 794 (DB) and Avtar Singh vs. Baldev Singh,. Even if the plaintiff has reserved the right to lead evidence in rebuttal, the same is relatable to the issue herein as there was no such rebuttle issue in view of facts on record.
5. In view of aforesaid legal position, I find no justification in interfering in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
