JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: (Oral) - A suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner herein, is owner in possession and in control of the tubewell connection bearing account No.SG3/0118 (New A/c No.AP07/0118) and that defendant No.1 has been left with no right, title or interest in the said tubewell after a writing was executed among the parties, is pending adjudication before the lower court. Foundation of the entire case of the petitioner-plaintiff is the writing vide which the ownership and possession of the tubewell is claimed by the petitioner-plaintiff. Contesting defendant had denied the said writing and repudiating the claim of the plaintiff, had claimed ownership and possession of the tubewell. 2. During the course of leading of evidence, when the petitionerplaintiff had brought the hand-writing and finger print expert to prove the signatures of the defendant on the questioned document and had also examined the said expert in evidence, an objection was taken by the counsel for the contesting-defendant, respondent herein, that the hand-writing and finger print expert could not be examined in rebuttal evidence by the petitioner-plaintiff as the said evidence was of affirmative nature and was to be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff in affirmative only when the other evidence was being produced by them. 3. No notice is being issued for avoiding delay as no prejudice is likely to be caused to the defendants by the order which this Court proposes to pass. 4. No doubt, document (Ex.PW/3/B) forming foundation of the case of the petitioner-plaintiff having been propounded by him, was to be proved by him as he was to discharge the said onus of proof. In this context, observation of the trial court in the impugned order that the said witness could not be examined in rebuttal evidence on general principles of law is prima-facie correct. However, there is one additional factor which had completely gone unnoticed by the lower court. While framing the issue, the lower court had framed an issue, onus of which had been placed on the defendant to prove that the document was forged and fabricated. For ready reference, the said issue is reproduced as below:- “3. Whether alleged writing if any is forged and fabricated document? OPD” 5. When onus of proving this issue was on the defendants, the plaintiff had a right to produce evidence in rebuttal to this issue. For ready reference, the said issue is reproduced as below:- “3. Whether alleged writing if any is forged and fabricated document? OPD” 5. When onus of proving this issue was on the defendants, the plaintiff had a right to produce evidence in rebuttal to this issue. Counsel for the petitioner has also sought support from Sardara Singh v. Baljit Singh, [2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 355] : 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 14, Pawan Kumar and another v. Vijay Kumar and others, 2011(2) CCC 255, Pawan Kumar v. Surinder Pal and another, [2009(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2098] : 2010(8) RCR (Civil) 1958, Pappu @ Rai Singh v. Smt. Chander Wati and others, 2012(4) PLR 607 and Vijay Lakshmi and another v. Shagan Lal an dothers, [2007(1) Law Herald (P&H) 614] : 2007(2) ICC 700, while referring to Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC. It is claimed that the plaintiff has a right to produce evidence in rebuttal in respect of the issue as above, for proving of which onus lay upon the defendant. 6. There is force in argument of Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that had issue No.3 not been there, the petitioner-plaintiff was to prove his entire evidence in the affirmative without any reservation having been made for production of rebuttal evidence. 7. The misunderstanding has clearly crept in the mind of the petitioners because of existence of issue No.3 by the lower court. 8. Even otherwise, the evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff is substantive and core evidence without which not only the plaintiff but even the court would remain handicapped in adjudicating the matter competently, effectively and wholesomely. The evidence thus is required for effective and complete adjudication of the matter. 9. Taking the request of the plaintiff to produce this evidence as additional evidence under Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff is allowed to examine handwriting and finger print expert as a witness whose report is already on the file. Cross examination would be completed on the same day itself. 10. Since the application for this evidence of the plaintiff is being allowed as additional evidence under Section 151 CPC, the respondentdefendants would have a right to produce any other evidence in repudiation of the claim of the petitioner, if they so desire. 11. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. ---------0.B.S.0------------