##PAGE1##

CR-3032-2021 (O&M)

1 of 7

(cid:1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(cid:1)

209 CR-3032-2021 (O&M)

Date of decision: 18.05.2026

(cid:1)

Paramjit and another ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Jai Parkash and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate and(cid:1)

Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, Advocate(cid:1)

for the petitioners.(cid:1)

(cid:1)

Mr. Madan Pal, Advocate(cid:1)

for respondent No.1.(cid:1)

***(cid:1)

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiffs No.1 and 3 seeking

setting aside of the order dated 10.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Kurukshetra; whereby application dated 18.08.2021

(Annexure P-4) filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission of the Court to

examine Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal evidence, has

been dismissed.(cid:1)

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -(cid:1)

28,10.2015: Plaintiffs had filed a Civil Suit dated 28.10.2015 (Annexure P-

1) for specific performance of Agreement to Sell dated 02.05.2015 with

possession of suit property as owner with permanent injunction. (cid:1)

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 15:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-3032-2021 (O&M)

2 of 7

(cid:1)

05.07.2016: Defendant/respondent No.1 had filed written statement

dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P-2). (cid:1)

24.03.2021: Respondent No.1 had appeared as DW1. In his Affidavit dated

nil and cross-examination dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure P-3), respondent

No.1 had denied his signatures on the Agreement dated 02.05.2015 Ex.P1.(cid:1)

18.08.2021: Plaintiffs had accordingly filed instant application dated

18.08.2021 (Annexure P-4) to examine Handwriting and Fingerprint

Expert in rebuttal evidence.(cid:1)

Nil: Respondent No.1 had filed reply dated nil to the said application of

the petitioners.(cid:1)

10.11.2021: Vide impugned order dated 10.11.2021, application of the

petitioners has been dismissed on the ground that issues had been

framed vide order dated 08.08.2016; evidence of the petitioners was

closed on 02.08.2019; and even the defendant’s evidence stood closed

vide order dated 29.07.2021. Therefore, application has been moved by

the plaintiffs at belated stage after parties have closed their respective

evidence and case is at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments.

Learned Trial Court has further held that no plausible explanation has

been given as to why plaintiffs had not examined Handwriting and

Fingerprint Expert at the stage of evidence of the plaintiffs. (cid:1)

3. Hence, present Revision Petition.(cid:1)

4. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

that the respondent in his written statement had merely denied the

Agreement to Sell as being “False, frivolous and forged document”.

DIVYANSHI

2026.05.20 15:32

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this order

(cid:1)

CR-3032-2021 (O&M)

3 of 7

(cid:1)

However, in his cross-examination, respondent No.1 had categorically

denied his signatures on the Agreement to Sell dated 02.05.2015 Ex.P1.

It is submitted that it was in this situation that the need arose for the

petitioners to lead evidence in rebuttal in view of the specific denial by

the respondent in his cross-examination.(cid:1)

5. Moreover, petitioners had duly reserved their rights to lead

evidence in rebuttal. Thus, petitioners cannot be denied opportunity to

lead evidence in rebuttal.(cid:1)

6. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be

allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.(cid:1)

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant opposes

submissions of the petitioners and submits that respondent in his written

statement (Annexure P-2) has categorically denied Agreement to Sell

dated 02.05.2015 and has further alleged that the said Agreement is

“Absolutely false, frivolous and forged one.” It is submitted that therefore,

in view of the unequivocal denial of the Agreement by the respondent,

pet