PAWAN SINGH Vs. ROHTASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is on the last legs of its journey. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Evidence of the parties stands concluded. Final arguments are in sight. In this order, the parties are referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) The defendant on his turn had ample opportunity, while the plaintiff's evidence was in progress, to have countered the expert opinion brought on the record by the plaintiff while it was in the hands of both the parties to have done the best they could to protect their competing interests in property, the deal not having materialized with defendant backing out.

(3.) The handwriting and fingerprint expert opinion relied upon by the plaintiff is now castigated as one which is tainted and prepared with intent to create false evidence against the defendant, who albeit did not wholeheartedly object to it being exhibited on record without as much as praying for leave to bring a counter-opinion on the file when the testimonies of the witnesses of the plaintiff were being recorded and thereafter as milestones in the suit kept passing by. The defendant let time slip by and sat back to conclude his evidence without demur or protest. Today, at the fag end of the trial the defendant complains that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat erred in rejecting his application for leading a handwriting and fingerprint expert as his witness to tender expert opinion on the subject matter document on the record of the case. The suit is one for specific performance based on an agreement of sale of the disputed property. The defendant is the prospective vendor resisting sale. Both the parties knew the case against each other from the very beginning and went to trial on the issues struck. Steps were not taken at the appropriate stage in this regard and now it is too late to permit a handwriting expert to enter the witness box and delay the proceeding. At this stage, the testimony of such a witness brought to demolish the expert opinion previously tendered has dangerous propensity of attempting to fill in lacunas which may be perceived emanating from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties on the judicial file, which deserves not to be lightly granted to permit defendant bringing in self-serving evidence on record and that too at an inappropriate stage of the suit, the milestones of which stand crossed, the bridges burnt. In a suit for specific performance of a contract based on an agreement of sale, the entire case is woven around the agreement in which lies the heart of the lis. It either stands upright with the plaintiff or is torn to shreds in court by the defendant. Negligence to lead evidence for and against when the turn comes and goes should be normally unpardonable unless there are exceptional circumstances of a high order necessitating departure; or the ends of justice demand permission to avoid any miscarriage of it. I find both these ingredients singularly missing in this case. The freedom of action the defendant had at the commencement of the trial and during the course of cross-examining plaintiff's witnesses and thereafter while leading his own evidence is now taken away by his slumber. There are no come backs here as it may be whimsical to allow party to retrace steps.