Punjab-Haryana High Court
Davender Singh Chauhan vs Balbir Singh Chauhan & Ors on 22 July, 2015
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
CR No.4549 of 2015 (O&M) 1
109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.4549 of 2015 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 22, 2015
Devender Singh Chauhan
......Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Balbir Singh Chauhan and others
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
SABINA, J Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 14.07.2015, whereby, application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was necessary in the interest of justice to examine hand- writing expert qua signatures of deceased Om Parkash Singh Chauhan on exhibit PH and exhibit PJ. Learned counsel has further submitted that only one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to enable him to examine the expert.
Petitioner has filed suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Petitioner has challenged the decree dated 21.08.1981 suffered by Om Parkash in favour of Balbir Singh. The case of the petitioner is that he was not a party to the suit and no family settlement had taken place between the parties.
When the case was listed for rebuttal evidence, if MAHAVIR SINGH 2015.07.23 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CR No.4549 of 2015 (O&M) 2 any, of the petitioner and arguments, an application was moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, petitioner wants to get the signatures of deceased Om Parkash Singh Chauhan examined qua exhibit PH (written statement) and exhibit PJ (statement). The case of the petitioner is that signatures on both the documents were not of the same person.
In the present case, petitioner by filing suit has challenged the decree dated 21.08.1981. Hence, the onus to prove that the decree was null and void, was on the petitioner. Petitioner was required to lead evidence qua his pleadings in the affirmative. Moreover, in the plaint, no averment qua fraud or impersonation by defendant No.1 has been made. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that the application moved by the petitioner for permission to lead additional evidence for examination of signatures of deceased Om Parkash Singh Chauhan on documents exhibit PH and exhibit PJ was liable to be dismissed.
No ground for interference by this Court, is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE July 22, 2015 mahavir MAHAVIR SINGH 2015.07.23 16:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh