The court affirmed that rebuttal evidence cannot be used to address omissions in a party's initial case once the affirmative evidence stage is closed.

MANDEEP PANNU J.

1. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri, District Sangrur, whereby the application dated 18.07.2025 moved by the plaintiff for directing defendants No. 1 and 2 to furnish their specimen signatures and handwriting for comparison with the disputed writing dated 12.12.2001 has been dismissed.

Brief Facts

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration claiming himself to be exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 106 Bighas 4 Biswas on the basis of a partition agreement dated 12.12.2001 allegedly executed between him, defendants No. 1 and 2, and Nikka Singh (since deceased). In the written statement, the defendants denied the execution of such writing, terming it forged and fabricated. Issues were framed on 03.09.2024 and thereafter both parties led evidence. The plaintiff examined himself and other witnesses in support of the writing. The defendants led their TRIPTI SAINI evidence and contested the genuineness of the document. At that stage, when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff moved the instant application to obtain specimen handwriting and signatures of defendants No. 1 and 2 for comparison with the signatures on the disputed writing dated 12.12.2001.

3. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiff had already availed sufficient opportunity to lead his affirmative evidence, that there was no fresh question in rebuttal, and that permitting such evidence would amount to giving the plaintiff a second opportunity to fill up lacunae in his case. It was observed that once the burden to prove the disputed writing lay upon the plaintiff, such evidence ought to have been led in his affirmative stage and not at the stage of rebuttal.

Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner

4. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the very foundation of the plaintiff’s claim is the writing dated 12.12.2001 and once the defendants denied execution, the most effective and scientific method of proof is comparison of their signatures with specimen signatures taken in Court. It is urged that Section 72 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (corresponding to Section 73 of the Evidence Act) specifically empowers the Court to direct any person present in Court to give his specimen signatures or handwriting at any stage of the proceedings for purposes of comparison, and therefore no prejudice would be caused to the defendants if such a direction is issued. It is argued that denial of this opportunity amounts to denial of fair trial.

5. No notice is required to be issued, the matter being not affecting the rights of the respondents at this stage.

TRIPTI SAINI Findings

6. After hearing learned counsel and considering the material on record, I am of the view that no interference is called for. The burden to prove the disputed writing dated 12.12.2001 was squarely upon the plaintiff. The stage to lead such evidence was when the plaintiff’s affirmative evidence was being led, and not at the stage of rebuttal. The plaintiff has already examined witnesses to prove the writing. Having closed his evidence, he cannot now invoke the garb of rebuttal to reopen his affirmative case. It is well settled that rebuttal evidence can only be led to counter a fact first established by the opposite party, but cannot be used as a device to fill up omissions or lacunae left in the affirmative evidence of the party.

7. The trial Court has rightly noticed that there were only two issues, both legal in nature, the onus of which lay on the defendants, and that the plaintiff had no occasion to lead any rebuttal evidence beyond what was already adduced. The auth