JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. This is a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by trial Court, vide which the application filed by the petitioners for the examination of the fingerprint expert has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs/petitioners had filed a suit for declaration by relying upon the family settlement which was allegedly arrived at in the year 2002 and regarding which there was a writing dated 26.12.2002. The said suit was filed in the year 2019. In the written statement filed by the contesting respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2, it was denied that any such family settlement ever took place and it was stated that no such family settlement was ever signed by the answering defendants or other legal heirs and the said alleged family settlement was never reflected in the revenue records as contemplated under Section 123 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.

3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs have led their evidence and in spite of the above stand taken by the contesting respondents No.1 and 2/defendants No.1 and 2, no fingerprint expert had been examined by the petitioners and it was only when the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments that an application (Annexure P-4) was filed by the petitioners to examine the fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence. The said application was opposed by the respondent No.1 by filing a reply (Annexure P-5) in which it had been stated that the signatures on the alleged family settlement had been denied by the contesting respondents from the beginning and the plaintiffs had availed as many as 14 opportunities from 18.05.2022 to 08.09.2023 and when the case was at the fag end, the present application had been filed, which was not maintainable.

4. The trial Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 has rejected the said application by observing that the same has been filed at the fag end, when the case is fixed for rebuttal and arguments and that at that stage, no evidence which the plaintiffs should have led in the affirmative could be allowed to be led. It has also been noticed that the original alleged family settlement dated 26.12.2002 has not been produced on record and that the report which has been prepared by the plaintiffs of a handwriting expert has been prepared without the permission of the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had moved an application to examine a fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence and in case the witness who has already prepared the report is not acceptable, since the permission was not taken from the Court, then, the petitioners would be satisfied in case the petitioners are permitted to examine a fresh fingerprint expert in rebuttal evidence after due permission is granted. It is submitted that the signatures of the defendants on the said family statement are necessarily required to be proved in the present case. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application filed by the petitioners be allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition and has submitted that as per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No.2203 of 2010 titled as Avtar Singh and another Versus Baldev Singh and others decided on 21.11.2014, it is only with respect to the issues the onus of which is on the defendants and regarding which the plaintiffs have specifically reserved their right at the time of closing of their evidence or at a stage prior to the defendants starting their evidence, that rebuttal evidence could be permitted and in the present case, the petitioners have not been able to highlight any issue the onus of which was on the defendants regarding which the plaintiffs/petitioners wish to lead rebuttal evidence. It is submitted that it was the stand of the contesting respondents in the written statement that the said alleged family