Pritpal Singh vs Davinder Singh And Others on 4 October, 2013

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pritpal Singh vs Davinder Singh And Others on 4 October, 2013

Bench: L. N. Mittal

                                            C. R. No. 6040 of 2013                              1




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                                                                                     Sr. No. 113

                                                          Case No. : C. R. No. 6040 of 2013
                                                          Date of Decision : Oct. 04, 2013


                               Pritpal Singh                    ....   Petitioner
                                                    Vs.
                               Davinder Singh and others        ....   Respondents


                  CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

                                            *   *   *

                  Present :    Mr. S. S. Swaich, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                                            *   *   *

                  L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

Plaintiff has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure P-6) passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-4) filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for directing defendant no. 1 to give his specimen signatures and left thumb impressions and for directing defendant no. 3 to give her specimen right thumb impressions, for comparison thereof with their signatures/thumb impressions on the impugned agreement.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case Monika 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 6040 of 2013 2 file.

Counsel for the petitioner, relying on judgments of this Court namely Pawan Kumar vs. Surinder Pal reported as 2009 (0) AIJ-PH 1631064 and Bachittar Singh vs. Harnek Singh reported as 2009 (0) AIJ-PH 1631599, contended that in view of issue no. 7 framed in the suit, the plaintiff has right to lead evidence in rebuttal.

I have considered the matter.

The plaintiff, in his plaint (Annexure P-1), alleged execution of impugned agreement by the defendants. However, defendants/respondents, in their written statement (Annexure P-2), specifically denied the execution of impugned agreement by the defendants. Consequently, the proposed evidence of comparison of signatures/thumb impressions of the defendants on the impugned agreement with their specimen signatures/thumb impressions had to be led by the plaintiff in affirmative evidence. However, application Annexure P-4 was filed by the plaintiff after defendants had led some evidence after conclusion of plaintiff's evidence. At this stage, the plaintiff had no right to lead the proposed evidence. Issue no. 7, referred to by counsel for the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder :-

"7. Whether agreement in question is vague and bears additions and alterations, if so its effect ? OPD"

Monika 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 6040 of 2013 3

The plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead proposed evidence in rebuttal because the said evidence does not relate to issue no. 7. Issue no. 7 is regarding alteration and additions in the agreement and the agreement being vague. Consequently, comparison of signatures/thumb impressions of the defendants on the agreement has nothing to do with issue no. 7. On the contrary, the proposed evidence relates to issue no. 1, which is reproduced hereunder :-

"1. Whether defendants executed agreement to sell dated 24.08.2000 on receipt of earnest money ? OPP"

The plaintiff had to lead the proposed evidence under issue no. 1 while leading evidence in affirmative. The plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead the proposed evidence in rebuttal because onus of issue no. 1 is on the plaintiff. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagdev Singh and others vs. Darshan Singh and others reported as AIR 2007 (Punjab and Haryana) 118 and also in the case of Surjit Singh and others vs. Jagtar Singh and others reported as AIR 2007 (Punjab and Haryana) 1 (1) has held that plaintiff cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue, onus whereof is on the plaintiff. The said legal proposition is applicable to the instant case. Judgments in the cases of Pawan Kumar and Bachittar Singh (supra) are not applicable Monika 2013.10.05 11:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh C. R. No. 6040 of 2013 4 to the instant case because in those cases, the plaintiff had right to lead the proposed evidence in rebuttal on the issues, onus whereof was on the defendants.

For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application Annexure P-4 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is sans any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.

                  Oct. 04, 2013                                  ( L. N. MITTAL )
                  monika                                               JUDGE




Monika
2013.10.05 11:15
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court