IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2589-2023 Date of decision : 03.02.2026 M/S MADAN LAL SHIV KUMAR AND ORS. ....Petitioners Versus PARGAT SINGH AND ANR ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present : Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Devyansh, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Plaintiffs are in revision.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of Rs.43,00,000/- against the defendants/respondents.

2.1. As per the plaintiffs, amounts were advanced to the defendants at various times owing to their business relationship. The defendants used to sell their agriculture produce through plaintiff-firm. Every year, the sale proceeds were adjusted and the balance was carried forward. The claim of the plaintiffs is based upon Bahi entries which are claimed to have been signed by the defendants.

3. Suit was contested by the defendants, who disputed the entries and claimed that the same were false, fake and bogus. Defendants denied their signatures on the same.

4. Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for recovery of Rs.43,00,000/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum with costs? OPP

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not legally maintainable? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi and cause of action to file present suit? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing present suit by their own act and conduct? OPD

5. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is time barred? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiffs have not valued the suit property for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands and suppressed true material facts? OPD

9. Relief.

5. Both the parties led their evidence to prove their case. In rebuttal, plaintiffs moved present application seeking permission to examine the handwriting expert.

6. The application has been dismissed by the Trial Court, holding that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed by the plaintiffs. The evidence sought to be produced in rebuttal is material evidence which shall aid the Court to adjudicate the lis effectively.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

9. The right of the party to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC is in no more res integra and has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh and others vs.

Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR(Civil) 537, observing as under:

“15. In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra). It has been held that if a statement is m