RAJINDER PAL Vs. BAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved of order dtd. 18/7/2023, Annexure P-7, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an applicat, Annexure P-5, for permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.

(2.) Ms. Shivya Sehgal, counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit under Sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short "1963 Act") has been filed by the petitioner for possession of a plot and upon being served, it is contested by the defendants. Counsel asserts that after both the parties concluded their evidence, plaintiff filed an application on 24/5/2023, Annexure P-5, to produce evidence in rebuttal on issues the onus of which was on the defendants. While making a reference to the application, Annexure P-5, she states that the plaintiff intends to produce four witnesses and record of the previous litigation between the parties. She contends that the Trial Court has erred in denying the right to lead rebuttal evidence as onus of proving some issues was on the defendants. She has placed reliance upon Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537; Avtar Singh and another Vs. Baldev Singh and others 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 625 and Jai Narain Vs. Satya Narain and others 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 585.

(3.) Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Rampal, counsel for respondents No.1(i) to (iv) has supported the impugned order and has urged that after closure of the evidnce in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Kaur and others (CR-280-2021 decided on 25/2/2025).