JUDGMENT Mr. Rajan Gupta, J.:- Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by court below whereby application of the plaintiff-petitioner for comparison of thumb impression of defendant no. 1 namely Sukhbir affixed on the agreement to sell and receipt with admitted thumb impression has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. According to him, trial court has erroneously rejected the application moved by the petitioner for comparison of thumb impression of defendant no. 1 namely Sukhbir on the agreement in question. Same was necessary for proper adjudication of the case. He has relied upon judgment reported as Pawan Kumar & anr. vs. Vijay Kumar & ors. 2011(2) CivCC 255 . 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. It appears that plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for possession on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.09.2005 with consequential relief of permanent injunction. Plaintiff led evidence in affirmative and examined 4 witnesses. Evidence of defendants was closed on 18.02.2013 and case was adjourned for rebuttal/arguments. At this stage, instant application was moved by plaintiff to compare the thumb impression of defendant no. 1 with admitted thumb impression. Trial court has rejected the prayer on the ground that evidence in rebuttal can be led only on issues onus of which was upon the defendant. I find no infirmity with the order. In the instant case, plaintiff had filed the suit on the basis of agreement to sell dated 14.09.2005. Plaintiff is supposed to stand on its own legs. He got ample opportunity to lead evidence in affirmative. At the stage of rebuttal evidence, prayer to lead further affirmative evidence is mis-conceived. The judgment in Pawan Kumar’s case (supra) is not applicable to the peculiar facts of this case. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------