Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Zora Singh vs Bhagwan Singh And Others on 10 December, 2012

Author: A.N.Jindal

Bench: A.N.Jindal

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

                               CR No.441 of 2012 (O&M)
                               Date of decision: 10.12.2012

Zora Singh
                                                                ... Petitioner

                                   Versus
Bhagwan Singh and others
                                                               ... Respondent

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

Present :    Mr.Arun Luthra, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
             Mr.Akash Singla, Advocate
             for respondents No.1 to 6.

A.N.Jindal, J. (Oral)

This revision petition has arisen out of the orders dated 5.12.2011 and 17.12.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) Budhlada vide which the respondents-plaintiffs were allowed to produce the document (Ex.CX) in rebuttal evidence.

I have gone through the judgments passed in case Pawan Kumar Vs. Surinder Pal and another", 2010(8) RCR (Civil), 1958, "Wazirpur Small Industries Association (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and others" 2010(4) AD (Delhi) 262 and "Kewal Singh Vs. Jagjit Singh", 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 631 and "Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Jagat Singh and others", 1990(2) Crl.41 over which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the respondents in order to contend that the plaintiffs should be given sufficient opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to prove his case after defendants close their evidence as provided under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Still further, in case of any specific issue, the onus of which is upon the defendants, then he should be provided an opportunity to lead rebuttal evidence after the defendants close their CR No.441 of 2012 (O&M) [2] evidence on that issue. The trial court has also rightly discussed regarding the rights of the plaintiffs to lead evidence on the issue, the onus of which is on the defendants.

No merits.

Dismissed.

( A.N.Jindal) 10.12.2012 Judge sd