CHAITANYA KOCHAR Vs. BALBIR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-plaintiff (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 1.3.2011 (Annexure P3) passed by the trial court. There is a specific issue, the onus of which is upon the defendant, which reads as under :-

(2.) The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant and the defendant in order to prove that the document is a forged and fabricated, had examined the Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert. At the time when the plaintiff was leading evidence, he never knew as to what evidence has to be led on the issue regarding forgery and fraud as alleged. But, after the evidence was led by the defendant on this issue, the plaintiff could be given right to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendant over the issue, onus of which was upon the defendant. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment delivered in case Sardara Singh vs. Baljit Singh, 2010 2 RCR(Civ) 14, in order to contend that the petitioner has no right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The relevant part of the judgment delivered in Sardara Singh's case , reads as under :-

(3.) There is no dispute with the proposition of law as discussed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh's case . For further clarification, I may observe that the Division Bench of this Court in Sardara Singh's case was right in holding that when the onus to prove the execution, legality and validity of the document was upon the plaintiff and if he is given opportunity to lead evidence and he leads evidence, then he cannot lead any other evidence in rebuttal and he could lead evidence in rebuttal only on those issues, the onus of which was upon the defendant and his right cannot be curtailed to rebut the evidence led by the defendant over the said issue, the onus of which was upon him. Consequently, this court is of the considered opinion that the rights of the plaintiff cannot be curtailed to rebut the evidence on the issues, the onus of which was upon the defendant, when the defendant led evidence qua that issue.