IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:24.02.2025 SHRIMONI GURUDWARA PABANDHAK COMMITTEE ... Petitioner V/S JARNAIL SINGH AND ORS .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present: Mr. Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate for the respondents.

***

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Challenge in the instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 08.08.2014, Annexure P-3, passed on an application filed by the petitioner-defendant for expunging the rebuttal evidence led by the respondents-plaintiffs, has been declined.

2. Mr. Sandeep Bansal, counsel for the petitioner has argued that after having closed their evidence in the affirmative, plaintiffs cannot be permitted to produce witnesses in the garb of rebuttal evidence. He asserts that the plaintiffs can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues in which the burden of proof is on the defendant, unless the plaintiffs specifically reserved their right to do so. He has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgments of this Court in:

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

(ii) Jagdev Singh and others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 794; and (iii) Avtar Singh and another Versus Baldev Singh and others, 2015(1) PLR 230

3. On the other hand, Mr. Naveen Batra, counsel for the respondents, while supporting the impugned order has contended that the evidence being produced by the respondents-plaintiffs is vital for the just decision of the suit and the respondents had made its foundation in the witnesses already produced by them.

4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties besides examining the paper book with their able assistance.

5. Respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit, Annexure P-4, for declaration to the effect that they are lessees in the suit land upon payment of 1/3rd share of produce and eviction order passed under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1997, is illegal and unforceable. They also sought consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing them in execution of the eviction order. Suit is being contested by the petitioner-defendant by filing a written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiffs are the lessee of the land as detailed and described in the head note of the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether order dated 20.05.2008 is illegal, null and void?OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP.

4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD.

5. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit under the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Recovery Act) 1977 ?OPD.

6. Whether plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD.

7. Relief.”

6. After examining Tarlok Singh, PW-1, plaintiffs closed their evidence and the trial Court passed the following order on 09.12.2013:-

“I close the evidence of the Plaintiff in affirmative.”

Sd/- CJ(JD), 09.12.2013.”

7. Defendants concluded their evidence on 27.05.2014 and the proceedings were fixed for rebuttal evidence. On 30.05.2014, the plaintiff furnished a list of witnesses for examination in rebuttal evidence. On deposit of requisite charges, some witnesses were examined, when the petitioner-defendant filed an application, Annexure P-1 for expunging of the rebuttal evidence which has been declined vide order under challenge herein.

8. A perusal of the issues framed by the trial Court shows that the onus of first three issues is on the plaintiff and the remaining three issues which pertain to the maintainability of the suit, jurisdiction of the Court and locus standi are to be established by the defendants. Plaintiffs examined one witness and closed their ev