Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 897 (PNJ)

Bachittar Singh v. Harnek Singh

2009-05-08

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2009
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is defendants revision petition challenging the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge(Sr.Divn.), Barnala, whereby the plaintiff- respondent has been permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal. 2. As per the averments made in this revision petition, the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement with regard to the land in dispute on the ground that the petitioners entered into an agreement to sell dated 24.11.2004 with the respondents for selling their land measuring 44 kanals for Rs.4 lacs per killa and received Rs.13 lacs as earnest money and agreed to register the sale deed on or before 23.12.2004. 3. The suit was contested by the petitioners taking up the defence that they have never executed the agreement to sell dated 24.11.2004 and the alleged agreement to sell was forged by the plaintiff in connivance with the scribe. It was further stated in the written statement that the thumb impressions of the petitioners on the alleged agreement to Civil Revision No.2631 of 2009 2 sell have been obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were famed by the trial Court : 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to relief of specific performance as alleged? OPP 2. Whether parties are entered into an agreement to sell property in dispute vide agreement dated 24.11.2004? OPP 3. Whether agreement to sell dated 24.11.2004 is outcome of the connivance of scriber with the plaintiff, if so, its effects? OPD 4. Whether plaintiff has no locus-standi to file present suit? OPD 5. Whether instant suit filed by the plaintiff just to harass the defendant? OPD 6. Relief. 5. After leading evidence in affirmative, the plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence reserving his right to lead rebuttal evidence. 6. Admittedly, issue No.3 regarding agreement to sell dated 24.11.2004 being a result of connivance of plaintiff and scribe, was to be proved by the defendants-petitioners. The defendants completed their evidence on 26.08.2008. To prove this issue, defendants examined Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Dr.Inderjit Singh. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent prayed to allow him to take photographs of the disputed thumb impressions and to allow him to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert by way of rebuttal evidence to the evidence led by the petitioners on issue No.3. The defendants completed their evidence on 26.08.2008. To prove this issue, defendants examined Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert Dr.Inderjit Singh. Thereafter, the plaintiff-respondent prayed to allow him to take photographs of the disputed thumb impressions and to allow him to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert by way of rebuttal evidence to the evidence led by the petitioners on issue No.3. The trial court vide impugned order allowed the aforesaid prayer of the plaintiff-respondent. 7. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas left by him while leading his evidence in affirmative to prove his case. The plaintiff-respondent was very well in the knowledge of the stand taken by the petitioners with regard to the document in question and therefore he could not be allowed to lead rebuttal evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find no merit in the contention raised by him. Admittedly, the onus to prove issue No.3 was upon the petitioners. The plaintiff-respondent has been allowed to examine the handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal of the evidence led by the petitioners to prove the aforesaid issue. It is well settled that the plaintiff has a right to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendants on such issues, the onus to prove of which was upon the defendants. Dismissed.