Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Bala (Smt.) – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Singh – Respondent
CR No. 1757 of 2024
Decided On : 19-03-2024
EVIDENCE - REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - The court addressed the admissibility and scope of rebuttal evidence in a suit for specific performance, allowing the plaintiff to present handwriting and fingerprint expert testimony despite the defendant's objections regarding the scope of rebuttal. The court emphasized the importance of allowing both parties to present evidence to ensure a fair trial, ultimately permitting the defendant to counter the expert evidence presented by the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for possession through specific performance of an agreement to sell, which the defendant contested by denying the execution of the agreement and claiming a loan from the plaintiff. The trial court allowed the plaintiff to present rebuttal evidence, including expert testimony on handwriting and fingerprints.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rebuttal evidence was permissible and that the defendant should be allowed to present further evidence to counter the handwriting expert's findings. The court noted that the scope of rebuttal evidence should not be unduly limited and that both parties should have the opportunity to present their cases fully.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in allowing the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence, including expert testimony, and whether the defendant should be permitted to counter this evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that rebuttal evidence is essential for a fair trial and that the defendant has the right to present evidence to challenge the plaintiff's expert testimony. The court emphasized that the scope of rebuttal should not be narrowly defined to exclude affirmative evidence.
Result: The revision petition was disposed of, allowing the defendant to lead further evidence to counter the handwriting expert's testimony while maintaining the evidence already on record.
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, J. :- The facts of this case poses a new challenge. The trial court has permitted the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and examine handwriting and finger print expert. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The defendant (petitioner herein) contested the suit on the ground that she had taken a loan from the plaintiff. She denied execution of the agreement to sell. When the defendant appeared in evidence she was cross-examined by the learned counsel representing the plaintiff. She was confronted with the agreement to sell and attention of the witness was drawn to the signatures, which were denied. Thereafter, the court permitted the plaintiff to examine the handwriting and finger print expert. The aforesaid statement has already been recorded. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the scope of rebuttal evidence is limited to the issues, onus whereof is on the defendant. He submits that affirmative evidence cannot be permitted to be led in rebuttal evidence.
2. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner.
3. Today the position is that the report of the handwriting expert has been produced and the deposition of the handwriting expert in chief has been recorded. The petitioner has been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting and finger print expert with the help of another handwriting and finger print expert of her choice.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, the revision petition is disposed of while permitting the petitioner to lead further evidence to counter the evidence of the handwriting and finger print expert. However, it is not considered appropriate to order deletion of the evidence, which has already come on record.
5. This order has been passed without issuing notice to the plaintiff. Hence, he will have liberty to file application for recall.
6. With these observations, the revision petition is disposed of. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.
The court established that rebuttal evidence can include affirmative evidence and that both parties must have the opportunity to present their evidence to ensure a fair trial.
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, regardl....
The plaintiff must be granted an opportunity to lead additional evidence to rebut a new defense of signature denial raised by the defendant during cross-examination.
The onus to prove the validity of the agreement lies with the defendant, and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal at a later stage.
A plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on a defendant, and must reserve the right to do so when his evidence is closed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
