MAJOR SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.9.2012, passed by the trial court whereby application of petitioner for examining a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order. He submits that plaintiffs ought to have been granted one opportunity to rebut the evidence led by defendant No. 1. According to him, defendants had tendered into evidence affidavit dated 27.12.1995 Ex. D1 which was forged and fabricated document. Thus, signatures thereon needed to be verified in rebuttal by obtaining signatures of Major Singh in the presence of court and examining handwriting expert.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for respondents has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that scope of rebuttal evidence is limited. Petitioner got ample opportunity to lead evidence in affirmative. Thus, present application is misconceived.

(3.) A suit was instituted by the plaintiffs wherein they claimed that they were owners in possession of a tubewell connection No. B -1307 of 5 B.H.P., installed in Khasra No. 9R/21(7 -4), Khewat No. 3, Khatauni No. 12, as mentioned in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 2002 -2003, situated at village Talwandi Bhinder. They also sought injunction to restrain the defendants from shifting the said tubewell connection. Thereafter, plaintiffs led evidence in affirmative. On notice, defendant No. 1 filed written statement and took the stand that plaintiff No. 2 had given affidavit on 27.12.1995 that he had no objection if connection was transferred in the name of defendant No. 1. It was further contended that the affidavit was also submitted before the electricity board. Plaintiffs did not rebut the written statement of defendant No. 1 by filing replication. However, they moved instant application for adducing evidence to show that the affidavit was forged and fabricated. As this application was moved at the stage of rebuttal evidence, same has been rejected by the court below. I find no legal infirmity with the order. Plaintiffs got sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in affirmative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be allowed to lead expert evidence at this stage. There is no scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.