Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Kumar vs Raj Kumar & Ors on 29 November, 2013

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.



                                                        Civil Revision No. 7295 of 2013

                                          DATE OF DECISION : November 29, 2013



               RAM KUMAR

                                                                          .......PETITIONER

                                              VERSUS

               RAJ KUMAR & ORS.

                                                                     .... RESPONDENTS



               CORAM :    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. BANGARH

                                                  ...


               Present:   Mr. Sunil Panwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.


               S. P. BANGARH, J.

Petitioner, herein, filed Civil Suit No.451 dated 26.10.2005 before the trial Court, against the respondents, herein, for declaration to the effect that he is owner and occupier in equal share along with the respondents of the suit land, more fully described in the cause title of the plaint.

During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner moved an application for permission to examine handwriting expert to compare the signature of the respondent No.1, herein, on the document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B). It was averred in the application that there had been an agreement dated 24.11.1991 in between the petitioner and Raj Kumar (respondent No.1) and others, wherein the petitioner was separated from the family temporarily, by giving him one acre of land, 10 quintals of Kang Gursharan Singh wheat and a house.

I am the author of this

However, the respondent No.1 refused to document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7295 of 2013 2 admit his signature on this agreement, when that was put to him, when he appeared as his own witness, at the time of leading evidence by the respondents.

It was further averred that the petitioner wants to get the signature of Raj Kumar (respondent No.1, herein) compared with his signature on document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW- 3/B). It was also averred that this comparison of signatures is necessary, as the same shall clinch the issue between the parties and shall help the Court to adjudicate the case properly. It was also averred that the handwriting expert could not be examined in evidence by the petitioner, in affirmative, as this document was not put to the respondent No.1, and he had not specifically denied his signature, thereon, which he denied after seeing it.

This application, on the other hand, was opposed by the respondents by filing written reply, thereto, averring, therein, that the petitioner cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of acceptance of this application and he should have produced the evidence, which he is seeking to produce, at the time, when he was leading evidence in affirmative. Therefore, the evidence which was to be led by him in affirmative, cannot be allowed to be led in rebuttal. Even the document dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B) was denied. It was also averred that the comparison of the signatures of the respondent No.1 is not necessary at all. Rest of the averments contained in the application were controverted and the prayer for dismissal, thereof, was, thus, made.

2013.12.04 16:14 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7295 of 2013 3

Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly placed reliance upon the judgment in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy, 2011 (86) ALR 457, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein, it was held that the Court can permit fresh evidence, if the evidence was relevant to render justice, even at the stage of arguments, that were partly heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the judgment in CR 5639 of 2012 (Santosh Kumar Berry v. Nirmala Devi and others), decided by this Court on 25.9.2012, whereby, the civil revision was allowed and the order closing the evidence was set aside and the case was reopened.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the evidence is very much essential for just decision of the case and that could not be led at the time when the petitioner was leading evidence in affirmative and, now, the present evidence may be allowed by way of additional evidence, if the same is beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence.

Thoughtful consideration has been given to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Both the judgments (supra) have been carefully examined, but the principle laid down, therein, is not applicable in the case in hand.

The principle laid down in the case that was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not applicable to the present case, as the fresh evidence is not going to be led. The compromise dated 24.11.1991 (Exhibit PW-3/B) was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner. It was his case from the Kang Gursharan Singh 2013.12.04 16:14 I am the author of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7295 of 2013 4 beginning that the compromise bears the signature of the respondent No1. So, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to lead evidence in affirmative, to the effect that it bears the signature of the respondent No.1. The execution of this document must have been denied by the respondent No.1 in the written statement. The proposed additional evidence was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner and if he had exercised due diligence, he would have examined the handwriting expert to prove the signature of the respondent No.1 on the alleged settlement (Exhibit PW-3/B) dated 24.11.1991.

Besides, opportunity was there with the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert at the time, when he was leading evidence in affirmative. There is no gainsaying about the proposition that the evidence of expert in this case is definitely beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence.

The handwriting expert cannot be allowed to be examined in rebuttal. He also cannot be allowed to be examined by way of additional evidence, as this evidence was well within the knowledge of the petitioner, at the time when he was leading evidence in affirmative.

So, taking the case from any angle, no case is made out to allow the petitioner to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence or by way of additional evidence.

Resultantly, the petition fails and is, hereby, dismissed, sans prejudice to the merits of the main suit.

               November 29, 2013                                  ( S. P. BANGARH )
               Kang                                                          JUDGE
Kang Gursharan Singh
2013.12.04 16:14
I am the author of this
document
Chandigarh