SUNIL SETIA Vs. RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to examine handwriting and finger print expert in rebuttal to compare the signatures of defendant on Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-4, Vakalatnama, written statement and the statement made before the Court with the sample signatures and also to call the clerk of the office of Sub Registrar along with sale deeds executed by Bindia in favour of Savitri Devi, Ram Mehar, Daya Wati and Kesho Devi.

(2.) Issues were framed and parties led their respective evidence. Instant application was moved at the rebuttal stage. Petitioner pleaded that defendant Ramesh Chander Gupta as DW-2 has denied execution of documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 and, therefore, necessity arises for examining handwriting and finger print expert.

(3.) It is relevant to point out that para No.2 of the written statement specifically recites that the defendant has denied the very execution of the agreement. Once a denial has been specifically made in the written statement, plaintiff is obligated to lead such type of evidence in affirmative. At the time of closing evidence by the plaintiff, no right was reserved for leading rebuttal evidence in respect of the issue, the onus of which was on the defendant. So far as issue of agreement is concerned, the onus was on the plaintiff himself. Despite clear denial in the written statement, no effort has been made to lead evidence in affirmative to prove execution of agreement to sell vis- -vis signature/ thumb impression of the defendant. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of issue, the onus of which is on the plaintiff.