GURBHEJ SINGH Vs. MAJOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 2/8/2019 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Moga vide which the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permission to inspect the record of the Trial Court and to produce expert witness regarding Ex.D1 has been allowed.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiffrespondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,80,000.00 on the basis of a pronote. In the written statement filed by the defendant-petitioner, the stand taken was that there had been a compromise dtd. 9/9/2017 (Ex.D1) between the parties. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was closed on 22/10/2018. After the defendant-petitioner had closed his evidence, an application was moved by him for leading secondary evidence regarding the compromise dtd. 9/9/2017 (Ex.D1). The said application was allowed vide order dtd. 29/1/2019. Immediately thereafter, on 28/3/2019, the present application was moved for permission to inspect the Court file and to produce the expert witness regarding the compromise dtd. 9/9/2017 (Ex.D1). Vide the impugned order dtd. 2/8/2019, the said application was allowed holding that the onus to prove the compromise was upon the defendant-petitioner and that the defendant-petitioner had proved the compromise by way of secondary evidence. It was further observed that though no formal issue was framed regarding the compromise (Ex.D1), however, an opportunity ought to have been given to the plaintiff-respondent to rebut the said evidence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has contended that since the plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right for rebuttal as envisaged under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hence, no opportunity ought to have been given.