IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

119 CR-2771-2026 Date of decision:16.04.2026 NIRMAL KUMAR ...PETITIONER VERSUS NARENDER KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS L.RS. AND ANOTHER ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate for petitioner.

***

PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL)

Present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article

227 of the Constitution of India by petitioner-plaintiff-plaintiff being aggrieved by impugned order dated 25.02.2026 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Punhana, whereby application filed by him under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for grant of permission to lead rebuttal evidence has been dismissed.

2. Admittedly, in suit for declaration, petitioner-plaintiff has claimed that he is landlord and exclusive owner of suit property and revenue records reflecting respondent-defendant No.2 to be owner are incorrect and liable to be corrected. Reliance was placed on deed of dissolution dated 31.03.2008. Along with relief of declaration, petitioner-plaintiff had also sought relief of permanent injunction restraining respondents-defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession over the suit property. Petitioner-

plaintiff, in alternative, sought mandatory injunction for restoring his possession if respondents-defendants manage to oust him from suit property. 3. Respondents-defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and claimed that petitioner-plaintiff has raised a false, forged and fabricated plea of partnership to usurp the suit property. Respondent- defendant No.2 specifically took the stand that he never signed any such document i.e. dissolution deed as being relied by petitioner-plaintiff and petitioner-plaintiff is liable to be prosecuted in Criminal Court.

4. By way of replication, petitioner-plaintiff again reiterated deed of dissolution one having been signed by respondent-defendant No.2 to be genuine.

5. On the basis of above assertions, following issues were framed vide order dated 25.08.2014:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP ii. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?

OPD iii. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and maintain the present suit ? OPD iv. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct ? OPD v. Whether the present suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-

joinder of the parties ? OPD vi. Whether the present suit is barred by under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act ? OPD vii. Relief.

6. Thereafter, petitioner-plaintiff was given opportunity to lead evidence, which was closed after due opportunity on 08.02.2017. Thereafter, respondents-defendants took chance to lead evidence in support of their case, which was also concluded on 01.03.2018. Thereafter, matter remained pending for rebuttal, if any, and arguments. However, in between suit was dismissed for non-prosecution and was restored back on 19.08.2025. Thereafter, again the matter was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. When the case was taken up for arguments, petitioner-plaintiff sought to examine handwriting expert to rebut evidence led by defendants, who in his defence had examined handwriting expert.

7. It is the case of petitioner-plaintiff that since respondents- defendants have examined handwriting expert and no specific issue regarding validity of dissolution deed was framed, therefore, petitioner-

plaintiff is within his right to lead evidence of expert in his rebuttal.

8. The learned Court of First Instance, however, had found that no right of rebuttal to examine handwriting expert has accrued to petitioner- plaintiff as the witness sought to be examined by petitioner-plaintiff could have only been examined in affirmative. As due opportunity was granted and availed by petitioner-plaintiff to lead his