JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Defendants have filed this revision petition challenging order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure P/6) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal. 2. Plaintiff-respondent Ram Pal filed suit for possession of suit property by way of specific agreement to sell alleging that defendant no. 1 entered into agreement dated 14.10.2001 to sell suit land to the plaintiff. 3. Defendant no. 1 in his written statement, interalia, pleaded that he never executed the agreement and in fact he had been selling his agricultural produce through Commission Agent shop of the plaintiff who used to obtain signatures of defendant no. 1 on plain papers as security and has manipulated the said document into agreement to sell. 4. The plaintiff led affirmative evidence. Thereafter the defendants led their evidence. While the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, defendants moved application, Annexure P/4, under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) for not permitting the plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal on affirmative issue no. 1. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court by impugned order, Annexure P/6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Issue Nos. 1, 3 and 5 which have been referred to by the trial court and by learned counsel for the parties during arguments are reproduced hereunder:- “(1) Whether the defendant entered into an agreement to sell his agricultural land as mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint, vide agreement dated 14.10.01 with the plaintiff ?OPP (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable ?OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts from the court ?OPD” 7. The defendants in their evidence got the agreement in question and receipt examined through handwriting expert. The plaintiff in rebuttal evidence wanted to examine handwriting expert to depict that signatures of defendant no. 1 on agreement in question tallied with his signatures on some receipts produced by defendant no. 1 himself who admitted his signatures thereon. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine handwriting expert regarding signatures of defendant no. 1 on the agreement because the said evidence relates to issue no. 1 of which the onus was on the plaintiff. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that defendant no. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine handwriting expert regarding signatures of defendant no. 1 on the agreement because the said evidence relates to issue no. 1 of which the onus was on the plaintiff. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that defendant no. 1 himself produced certain receipts in evidence on which he admitted his signatures but the said receipts had not been pleaded in written statement and therefore, now the plaintiff wanted to examine handwriting expert to depict that signatures on the agreement tallied with admitted signatures of defendant no. 1 on the receipts. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the aforesaid evidence has already been led in the trial court. 9. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 10. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the proposed evidence by the plaintiff which has already been recorded may be allowed to be led on payment of costs. As noticed hereinabove, the receipts in question on which defendant no. 1 admits his signatures were neither pleaded in the written statement nor produced during the evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff now wants to depict that the signatures on the agreement tally with the admitted signatures of defendant no. 1 on the receipts produced by defendant no. 1 himself. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the ends of justice would be met if the defendants are compensated by way of costs. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed to the extent that the evidence led by the plaintiff in rebuttal shall be read in evidence subject to the condition precedent that the plaintiff shall pay Rs 5000/- as costs precedent to the defendants. 12. Records of the lower court be sent back at once. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 15.2.2010. ------------