JUDGMENT :

Suvir Sehgal, J.

Assailing order dated 02.05.2016, Annexure P-9, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, SBS Nagar, whereby application filed for leading additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has approached this Court, by way of present revision petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that dispute pertains to a Will dated 25.03.2010, which was executed by Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, who had thumb marked it. He submits that in order to prove the due execution of the Will, comparison of thumb impression of the testator with her standard thumb impression on the registered Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2001 is essential. It is his case that the petitioner could not lay his hands on the original Power of Attorney, which is an admitted document and after locating it, application Annexure P-7 has been filed, but the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application, while holding that an expert cannot be examined in rebuttal, nor can additional evidence be produced by the plaintiff. He has contended that the Court has wide powers under Section 151 CPC to permit production of additional evidence at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the case. He asserts that deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC does not mean that additional evidence cannot be received at all. He has placed reliance upon:-

i) K.K.Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy; 2011 (2) SCC 275;

(ii) Government Senior Secondary School Versus Lilu Ram and others, 2012(3) PLR 403; and

(iii) Baljit Singh Versus Manjit Singh, 2014(1) PLR 625.

3. While supporting the impugned order, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1, has urged that after the closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal, regarding issues, the onus of which is on the plaintiff. It is his categoric assertion that plaintiff can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues, in which the burden of proof is on the defendant unless the plaintiff specifically reserves his right to do so. Reliance has been placed by him upon:

(i) Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) PLR 552;

(ii) Gurcharan Singh and others Versus Sukhmander Singh and others, 2018 (4) Civil Court Cases 49;

(iii) Parmod Kumar Vesus Bhagat Singh, 2018(4) PLR 741;

(iv) Raghbir and others Versus Parkash and others, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3527;

(v) Shri Sangmeshwar Mahadev Gramo Udyog Mandal Versus Ajmer Singh and another, 2014(49) RCR (Civil) 512; and

(vi) Ram Kumar Versus Raj Kumar and others, 2014(2) PLR 536.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended with the paper book.

5. Suit, Annexure P-1, has filed for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1, who is a minor and under the care and protection of his mother, plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 25.03.2010. A further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No. 2419 of the estate of Bachan Kaur, deceased is nonest and inoperative qua him with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining contesting defendants from interfering in his possession or from alienating the suit land. Upon notice, suit is being contested and a written statement, Annexure P-5, has been filed by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2012. The core question to be determined by the Trial Court is whether Will dated 25.03.2010, executed by Bachan Kaur, deceased, is a legal and valid document and that as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and closed his evidence. The order passed by the trial Court on 18.05.2015 is reproduced hereunder:-

'Sukhdeep Singh V Harbans Kaur

Present: Sh. VS Pahwa Adv cou