SEEMA Vs. HARBIR SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-defendant is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby the respondent-plaintiff has been granted permission to lead evidence in rebuttal in suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell dated 02.12.2011 by challenging the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and further by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3.

(2.) Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent-plaintiff by leading evidence in affirmative brought on record evidence in terms of pleadings, however, at the stage of defendant's evidence, the petitioner-defendant summoned stamp vendor from whom the alleged stamp paper for agreement to sell in question were purchased but the same was given up. It is in that background, respondent-plaintiff moved application for examining of the expert which is not permissible in the absence of any rebuttal issue. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff submitted that since the aforementioned witness was permitted to be summoned but when the defendant refused to examine, necessity arose to the plaintiff to get the truth ascertained by bringing on record the register as it would have supported the case of the plaintiff, therefore, the order under challenge cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or illegal, thus, urges this Court for dismissal of the revision petition.