SMT. BALA Vs. MUKESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of this case poses a new challenge. The trial court has permitted the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence and examine handwriting and finger print expert. The plaintiff has filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The defendant (petitioner herein) contested the suit on the ground that she had taken a loan from the plaintiff. She denied execution of the agreement to sell. When the defendant appeared in evidence she was cross-examined by the learned counsel representing the plaintiff. She was confronted with the agreement to sell and attention of the witness was drawn to the signatures, which were denied. Thereafter, the court permitted the plaintiff to examine the handwriting and finger print expert. The aforesaid statement has already been recorded. Learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the scope of rebuttal evidence is limited to the issues, onus whereof is on the defendant. He submits that affirmative evidence cannot be permitted to be led in rebuttal evidence.

(2.) This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the petitioner.

(3.) Today the position is that the report of the handwriting expert has been produced and the deposition of the handwriting expert in chief has been recorded. The petitioner has been granted an opportunity to cross-examine the handwriting and finger print expert with the help of another handwriting and finger print expert of her choice.