LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-380

MALKIAT SINGH Vs. NACHATTAR SINGH

Decided On April 10, 2015
MALKIAT SINGH Appellant
V/S
NACHATTAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that in view of additional issue framed on 25.11.2014, to the effect whether the pronote and receipt are forged and fabricated documents? OPD, the plaintiff - petitioner would be entitled to get an opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence that the pronote and receipt are not forged and fabricated documents by producing hand writing expert but the trial Court failed to appreciate this aspect.

(2.) AT this stage, Mr.Tarunveer Vashist, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the defendant -respondent and opposed the opportunity sought for by the plaintiff - petitioner to get the signatures of defendant - respondent examined by handwriting expert contending that the defendant himself has examined a handwriting expert who has established that the signatures existing on the disputed pronote do not belong to the defendant - respondent and as such, examination of another handwriting expert would not be permissible and that the plaintiff - petitioner could have examined handwriting expert while leading affirmative evidence and that he should not be permitted to produce any expert witness, at this stage. He has placed reliance on Sukhwinder Pal Singh Vs. Bhupinder Kaur, 2014 3 CivCC 319 (P&H); Ram Kumar Vs.Raj Kumar and others, 2014 3 CivCC 453(P&H); and Nirmal Singh Vs. Kamal Saini and others, 2014 3 CivCC 562(P&H).

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent. There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal especially on an issue, the onus of which issue is on the plaintiff. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff - petitioner had filed a suit for recovery against the defendant -respondent on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 1.12.2006. The defendant - respondent had denied his signatures and execution of the pronote and the following issues had been framed at initial stage: -