HARDIAL SINGH Vs. DAVINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 02.08.2016, passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Sr. Divn., Ajnala (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ld. Court below'), vide which the application of the plaintiff (respondent herein) was allowed whereby he had sought permission to get photographs of the specimen signatures of the petitioner- Hardial Singh, which are the disputed signatures and already on file.

(2.) It has been contended that the impugned order was contrary to the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC as opportunity to the respondent/plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal could be granted only qua those issues where the burden of proof lay upon the defendants and where the plaintiff had reserved his right of rebuttal in the absence of which his right of leading evidence in rebuttal would stand extinguished his right. It was further urged that the respondent/plaintiff after adducing his entire evidence, had closed his evidence on 08.05.2015 and thereafter, even the petitioner/defendant had led their evidence. In support, he placed reliance 1 of 5 on Avtar Singh and another vs. Baldev Singh and others, 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 728, Gulshan Ahuja Vs. Shiv Shakti International, 2019(1) Law Herald 753, Radha Devi Vs. Ram Gopal (since deceased) through his LRs and others, 2019(2) Civil Court Cases 297 and CR No. 1570 of 2016 (O&M), titled as, "Gurnam Kaur and Ors. Vs. Bal Tirath Singh", decided on 01.11.2019.

(3.) Per contra, the respondent/plaintiff contended that the petitioner/defendant had himself alleged in his written statement that the agreement to sell dated 04th November, 2011 was a result of fraud and impersonation. Further, it was also urged that a specific issue i.e. issue No.9 had been framed as to whether the alleged agreement to sell was a result of fraud and impersonation and hence the onus to prove this issue lay upon the petitioner/defendant. While discharging the onus on issue No. 9, the petitioner/defendant had examined the handwriting and fingerprint expert as DW2, who had given a report in favour of the petitioner/defendant. It was in this background that the respondent/plaintiff chose to rebut the evidence of the petitioner/defendant by examining the handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal. He could not have pre- supposed and led his evidence at an earlier stage in anticipation of the evidence, which could have been led by the petitioner/defendant later on. Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in support of his contention has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court rendered in Pawan Kumar Vs. Surinder Pal and Anr., 2009(3) Civil Court Cases 380 and Wazirpur Small Industries Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2010(22) R.C.R. (Civil) 188.