The right to lead evidence in rebuttal is limited by the onus of proof on the party seeking to lead such evidence, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code must be followed as they are, regardless of their harshness.

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition assails the order dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karnal vide which the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff to examine a fingerprint/handwriting expert was allowed.

2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the respondent/plaintiff-Roshan filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.12.2002 (Annexure P-1). The property in dispute is a plot measuring 3 Marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated in village Uncha Samana, District Karnal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘disputed plot’). The case set by the respondent-plaintiff was that an agreement to sell dated 24.12.2002 had been executed by the petitioner-defendant in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. The total sale consideration was fixed at ?30,000/- which was paid on the date of the execution of the agreement itself. Possession of the disputed plot is also stated to have been handed over to the respondent-plaintiff on the same day. Construction was raised subsequently and a residential house was constructed in the year 2004. Electricity connection was also taken. However, in 2012, efforts were made by the petitioner-defendant to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff forcibly. Efforts for an amicable settlement in the Panchayat were made which remained unsuccessful. Subsequent attempts to dispossess the respondent-plaintiff were also made. A civil suit for declaration was filed which was partly decreed and the petitioner-defendant was restrained from dispossessing the respondent-plaintiff from the disputed plot except in due course of law. Ultimately, a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was opposed by the petitioner-defendant. Preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, the suit being barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, there being no cause of action to file the suit, the respondent-plaintiff having concealed vital facts from the Court etc. were raised. It was also averred that the suit had been filed on a false and fabricated alleged agreement to sell. It was averred that the petitioner-defendant had never executed the alleged agreement to sell in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. On merits also, a similar stand was taken.

3. From the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence commenced.

4. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was closed on a statement having been given by the respondent-plaintiff (Annexure P-3). Subsequently, the evidence of the petitioner-defendant was also led.

5. After the same had been closed, an application (Annexure P-4) was moved by the respondent-plaintiff for getting the signatures of the petitioner-defendant on the agreement to sell dated 24.12.2002 compared with his admitted signatures upon the power of attorney, written statement, evidence affidavit and statement recorded before the Court and for the said purpose, services of a handwriting/fingerprint expert were sought to be availed. This application was opposed by way of a reply (Annexure P-5) in which it was averred that in rebuttal evidence, a handwriting/fingerprint expert could not be permitted to be examined nor could such an expert be permitted to be examined by way of additional evidence because the evidence sought to be led was well within the knowledge of the respondent-plaintiff when evidence in the affirmative was being led. However, the application was allowed by the trial Court leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the trial Court erred in allowing the application. It was contended that evidence which could have been led in the affirmative could not have been permitted to be led in rebuttal. Reference was made to the judgment dated 29.08.2022 passed by a Coordinate B