MOHINDER SINGH Vs. GURMIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF /petitioner in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the order dated 31.10.2011 whereby his application for examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.12.2005 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on 21.7.2006. The defendant -owner of the suit land set up a plea that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. Issues were framed on 24.4.2007 and the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed on 14.5.2010. Thereafter the evidence of the defendants was also closed. It was at the stage of rebuttal that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order impugned herein.

(3.) IT is not denied that the defendants have led no evidence in support of the plea that the agreement is forged and fabricated so as to vest in the plaintiff/petitioner a right to rebut that evidence in rebuttal. It is also not disputed that full opportunity was granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to lead his evidence in affirmative to prove the agreement to sell. It is settled law that in rebuttal plaintiff is given an opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the defendant on the issues the onus of which is cast upon defendant. In this case no such evidence having been led by the defendants, the permission for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert cannot be granted. In my opinion, the learned trial court by relying on Sardara Singh v. Baljit Singh and others,, 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 355, has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner.