JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) - The plaintiff is in revision against the impugned order dated 20.05.2014 by which its prayer for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert by way of additional evidence has been declined. 2. In brief, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease dated 12.05.2009 alleging that lease of 10 years was executed in its favour by the defendants on 12.05.2009 w.e.f. 02.11.2009 to 01.11.2019 and had received Rs.1,35,000/-, by way of cheque, as the lease money for one year. It is not denied by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the written statement, the defendants categorically denied the execution of the lease deed. The plaintiff examined two attesting witnesses of the lease deed and closed its evidence. The defendants also led their entire evidence and in order to prove that the signatures on the lease deed do not belong to them, they examined Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert. When the case was at the stage of rebuttal and arguments, the plaintiff filed the application for leading additional evidence by producing Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to prove due execution of the agreement of lease by the defendants. The said application has been declined by the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the evidence sought to be produced now would go to the root of the case and in this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Rajwant Kaur and others, 2014(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1138. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Court below which could be revised in this petition. 5. It is not in dispute that in their written statement, the defendants have specifically denied execution of the receipt dated 01.01.2005 and the lease deed dated 12.05.2009. The petitioner had an opportunity to prove the due execution of the aforesaid documents by examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert by proving the signatures of the defendants on the aforesaid documents but instead thereof, he had chosen to examine the attesting witnesses of the said documents who have alleged that the documents have been duly executed by the defendants. The petitioner had an opportunity to prove the due execution of the aforesaid documents by examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert by proving the signatures of the defendants on the aforesaid documents but instead thereof, he had chosen to examine the attesting witnesses of the said documents who have alleged that the documents have been duly executed by the defendants. When the defendants led their evidence by way of examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, the plaintiff woke up from its slumber and filed the application for leading additional evidence. 6. Additional evidence is led when it is not within the knowledge of the party leading evidence in affirmative. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was always open to it to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in affirmative and cannot be allowed to examine by way of additional evidence to contradict the report of the defendants who have also led their evidence in affirmative. 7. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction on the ground that he is the owner in possession of the property in dispute. He had relied upon a Will dated 09.11.2006 purported to have been executed by Sardool Singh son of Dalip Singh in his favour. After the evidence was closed by both the parties, in the rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff tried to examine the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert to prove due execution of the Will which was declined by the learned Trial Court but the permission was granted by this Court holding that “the main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the trial Court to dismiss the application of plaintiff, was that he has availed sufficient opportunities to prove his case and closed his evidence in affirmative and he cannot be allowed to examine the Handwriting & Finger Print Expert in rebuttal evidence”. It has been observed that the burden of proof of issues No.3 and 4 was on the defendants where question of validity and genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed in question is involved and in that eventuality, the permission was granted to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of additional evidence. 8. It has been observed that the burden of proof of issues No.3 and 4 was on the defendants where question of validity and genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed in question is involved and in that eventuality, the permission was granted to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of additional evidence. 8. However, this judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because the plaintiff has to prove the receipt and lease deed in its favour for which the issue was also casted upon it. It is well settled that the party who has to prove the issue cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal. The said judgment in Jaswinder Singh’s case (supra) has been duly considered by the learned Trial Court, holding that the evidence in possession of the plaintiff, at the time when it was leading its evidence in affirmative, cannot be allowed to be led at the stage of rebuttal by way of additional evidence. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————