GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Vs. LILU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 10.3.2012, invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff to produce an Expert in rebuttal evidence to establish that the age of the building in dispute is prior to the filing of the suit i.e., more than 35 years, has been allowed. The main grievance of the defendant-petitioner is that the plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative and that at the stage of production of rebuttal evidence, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce the building Expert as said evidence in rebuttal cannot be permitted in peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The trial Court relying upon the judgment in case Punjab Steel Corporation, Batala v. MSTC Limited Calcutta, 2001 4 RCR(Civ) 565, permitted the plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal. The judgment and decree relied upon by the Court stands over ruled in another judgment in case Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007 1 RCR(Civ) 537.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the trial Court has permitted the building Expert to be examined in rebuttal evidence despite the fact that there is no rebuttal issue requiring the production of said evidence.

(3.) With the assistance of the counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the plaint, written statement, issues and copy of the replication filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent is for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant-petitioner from demolishing or removing the construction of the houses of the plaintiff-respondent forcibly and illegally or from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the land and the houses mentioned in the plaint. The claim of the defendant-petitioner in the written statement as is apparent from copy of the written statement Annexure P-2, is that the plaintiffs have constructed their houses in land bearing Killa No. 3/2 (6-0) Rectangle 14 and have also encroached upon some portion of the land in Rectangle No. 11, killa No. 3/2, during pendency of earlier litigation. It has been denied that the plaintiff-respondents are owners in possession of the land bearing Killa No. 3/2 Rectangle No. 14. It has specifically been denied by the defendant-petitioner that the plaintiffs have raised construction of the houses more than 35 years ago. In the replication, the plaintiffs have reiterated that the houses are 35 years old.