IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (116)

CR-6391-2023 (O&M)

RESERVED ON 16.01.2025 DATE OF DECISION:- 01.03.2025 SAPINDER SINGH ... PETITIONER VERSUS GURPREET SINGH ... RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Present:- Mr. Hitesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S.Gill, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. Petitioner/defendant has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition assailing order dated 03.07.2023, Annexure P-7, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Payal, whereby an application filed by respondent/plaintiff under Section 151, CPC for seeking permission to examine a forensic expert has been accepted.

2. Counsel for the petitioner/defendant has urged that after closing his evidence in the affirmative, respondent/plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal regarding issues the onus of which was upon the plaintiff. It is his assertion that the 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. It is also his stand that after the omission of Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC, a party does not have a right to lead additional evidence. He has placed reliance upon (i) Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, 2007 (1) PLR 552;

(ii) Sukhwinder Pal Singh Versus Bhupinder Kaur, 2014 (3) PLR 19; (iii) Ram Rattan Versus Anand Pandit and others, 2009 (5) R.C.R.

(Civil) 696;

(iv) Gurjeet Kaur Versus Mani Singh and another, 2015 (1)

PLR 643; and (v) Mukesh Gulati Versus Suraj Prakash Chauhan and others, 2015 (45) R.C.R. (Civil) 6.

3. While supporting the impugned order, counsel for the respondent has argued that a handwriting expert had been examined by the petitioner/defendant while leading his evidence, who submitted a biased report and in order to rebut it, respondent/plaintiff intends to examine Dr. Inderjit Singh, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, to give a report regarding the disputed signatures on the pronote and receipt dated 08.05.2014 as well as his photograph. It is his case that occasion to lead this evidence arose only after the defendant had examined an expert. Counsel asserts that merely because plaintiff’s evidence had been closed by Court order, does not debar him from leading additional evidence. He has made a reference to the following judgments:-

(i) P appu @ Rai Singh Versus Smt. Chander Wati and others, 2012 (4) PLR 607;

(ii) P arkash Kaur and others Versus Joginder Singh and others , 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 899;

(iii) L . M. P. Precession Engineering Company (P) Ltd. Versus Ram Narayan, 2004 (1) Civil Court Cases 429;

(iv) Y.S.Manchanda Versus Jitender Chopra, 2015 (14) R.C.R .

(Civil) 713; and (v) Kewal Singh Versus Jagjit Singh, 2008 (1) PLR 173 .

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, besides examining the paper-book with their able assistance.

5. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,57,000/-, along with future interest, on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated 08.05.2014 executed in his favour by the petitioner/defendant and for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant from alienating his share in the immovable property described in the suit. Petitioner/defendant is contesting the suit by filing a written statement, wherein, besides taking various preliminary objections, a stand has been taken that the pronote and receipt are forged documents and that the petitioner/defendant never borrowed any amount from the respondent/plaintiff. He specifically denied his signatures on the documents as also on the register of the deed writer. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery as prayed for? OPP

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

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintaina