Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh And Ors. vs Dalip Kaur And Ors. on 12 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIR1999P&H93, (1998)118PLR865, AIR 1999 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 93, 1998 (1) REVLR 320, 1998 HRR 361, (1998) 2 CIVILCOURTC 220, (1998) 118 PUN LR 865, (1998) 2 RECCIVR 352, (1998) 2 ICC 654, (1998) 2 CURLJ(CCR) 151
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar
ORDER Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. This Revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 13-12-1996 whereby the Court allowed the application of the plaintiff for producing an Expert at the stage of rebuttal. The main grievance of the petitioner against the impugned order is that the learned trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction which was not vested in it, in accordance with law. Allowing examination of an Expert for comparing the signatures on a Will in rebuttal is not permissible in law and the orders suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.
2. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it would be desirable to refer to the necessary facts. The plaintiff had filed the suit challenging the validity of the registered Will dated 12-4-1994 executed by Mohan Singh in favour of the petitioner herein. Vide order dated 28-3-1995 the learned trial Court framed the following issue :--
"Whether the Will dated 12-4-1994 is liable to be set aside ? OPP The plaintiff led his evidence and closed his evidence on 22-8-1995. Thereafter defendants, led their evidence on all the issues and closed their evidence on 27-8-1996. The case was fixed for plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on 4-9-1996. When the plaintiff tendered some documents on the aforesaid date the matter was adjourned to 18-9-1996 for examination of PW 2 in rebuttal. When the case was adjourned and finally fixed for 5-12-1996 for examination the plaintiff in rebuttal, an application for examination of the Expert was filed by the plaintiff. It was prayed in the application that permission be granted to produce the Expert for comparison of writing of the alleged Will dated 12-4-1994 in the interest of justice. For this purpose permission was sought to produce an Expert in rebuttal evidence. The application was obviously opposed in the suit who termed the application as totally frivolous. It was stated that the plaintiff could not lead such evidence in rebuttal if she had failed to lead proper evidence at the initial stage.
3. It may also be noticed here that in the suit the basic controversy raised before the Court is whether Mohan Singh could at all execute the said Will as the property was ancestral and the Will was false, illegal and ineffective document. Relief of joint possession was claimed on other grounds as well.
4. The learned trial Court exercised its jurisdiction in favour of the applicant and permitted the examination of the Expert at that stage vide the impugned order which is challenged before this Court. It is a settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of the High Court has a limited scope and ambit. Every order passed by the trial Court cannot be interfered with in revision merely because there was a possibility of construction of legal provisions of passing an order different from the one which was passed. The impugned order which is, subject to revisional jurisdiction of the Court can only be corrected if it suffers from error of jurisdiction or other patent error which is apparent on the face of the record. It is not only relevant but is pertinent to consider whether the order is procedural in its nature and substantially or really affects or determines the rights of the parties or causes serious prejudice to the rights of the parties to the lis. In other words if an order results in substantial injustice to the party there it may be justified to interfere with an order and correct the same in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction.
5. In the present case the parties are at issue with regard to validity of the Will and the very right pf Mohan Singh to execute the Will. The execution and writing of the Will is also disputed. The case is at evidence stage and I am unable to see any substantial injustice to the petitioner if the Expert is permitted to be examined at this stage. Consequently it may not be considered as evidence in rebuttal but could not be said an additional evidence at that stage. Thus it would give not only the right to the petitioner to cross-examine the Handwriting Expert but even lead evidence on that score. This is primarily for the reason that the onus was on the plaintiff-respondent and if the trial Court exercised its discretion in allowing the applicant to lead fresh evidence in rebuttal but to avoid any prejudice to the petitioner an opportunity has to be granted to him as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in Chakkar Pani v. Onkar Nath, 1996 (3) PLR 342, to argue that the applicant had no right to lead evidence in rebuttal. This case on facts is different and secondly the findings of the trial Court on merit had already been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court and in second appeal these observations were made by the Court.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Singh v. Pirthi, 1996 PLJ 605. In that case the Hon'ble Judge held as under:--
"Considering gravity of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view the trial Court has not fallen into any error in allowing the said petition and giving an opportunity to the plaintiff-respondents to examine Surjit Singh. Resultantly the revision being meritless is hereby dismissed."
7. The rules of Order 18 regulating the leading of additional evidence, rebuttal evidence and power of the Court to summon evidence at any state must be construed and read jn conjunction with each other to achieve the object of this procedural law. It is basic rule of law that wherever end of justice demands the procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve such ends rather than to scuffle the parties right at the trial stage and prevent them from leading com plete evidence in support of their case. This would be more true in the cases where such evidence relates to the basic issue to be deter-
mined by the Court. In this regard reference an be made to the judgment of this Court in Ganpati Udyog v. Punjab National Bank, 1996 (2) PLR 437 and Hazara Singh v. Bachan Singh C.R. No. 3723 of 1996, decided on 21-1-1998 which might accrue in law to a party of course without infringing any right or causing any serious prejudice or injustice to the non-applicant before the Court.
8. For the masons aforesaid I do not find any jurisdictional or any other error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 13-12-1996. Consequently this revision petition is dismissed, however, without any order of costs. Learned trial Court shall proceed in accordance with law and keeping in view the above observations.