BUDH SINGH Vs. MOHINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 7.7.2015 and 27.7.2015 (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application for producing the Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert in his rebuttal evidence as well as his application for additional evidence were dismissed, plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned orders.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued and in the meantime, passing of final judgment was stayed by this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Kulwant Singh v Chand Singh etc., 2015 (3) PLR 129, Jaswinder Singh v. Rajwant Kaur and others, 2014 (2) Law Herald 1138, CR No. 203 of 2012 (Kartar Kaur v. Darshan Singh) decided on 25.7.2014, CR No. 5628 of 2013 (Gurmeet Singh v. Satgur Singh and others) decided on 17.9.2013, CR No. 701 of 2011(Darshan Singh and others v. Baljinder Kaur and others), decided on 9.10.2013, CR No. 2878 of 2013 (Naresh Kumari v. Sh. Ajmer Singh and another) decided on 20.11.2013, CR No. 7143 of 2011 (Ranvir Singh v. M/s. Dashmesh Traders, Kup Kalan) decided on 9.12.2013 and CR No. 884 of 2014 (Hazur Singh v. Chander Shekhar) decided on 5.2.2014, submits that once the defendants-respondents prayed for framing additional issue and it was framed at their instance as Issue No. 5 (A) by the learned trial Court vide order dated 22015 and defendants produced their evidence, with a view to discharge their onus on additional Issue No. 5 (A), by examining Fingerprint and Handwriting Expert, the plaintiff would be entitled to lead his evidence in rebuttal. He further submits that at the time of leading evidence by the defendants on the above-said Issue No. 5(A), there was no occasion for the plaintiff-petitioner to reserve his right under Order 18, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short). However, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate this material aspects of the matter, while passing the impugned orders and the same are liable to be set aside.