Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur vs Karnail Singh And Another on 24 September, 2013
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C.R.No. 320 of 2012 (O&M) 1
207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R.No. 320 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 24.09.2013
Gian Kaur ... Petitioner
Versus
Karnail Singh and another ... Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Deepak Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
*****
L. N. MITTAL , J (ORAL)
Defendant No.1-Gian Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the trial Court thereby allowing the application (Annexure P-1) filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff for permission to obtain photographs of signatures of Mehanga Singh for the purpose of examining handwriting expert regarding comparison of said signatures with signatures on the impugned Will and other documents.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiff has no right Vandana 2013.09.27 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document C.R.No. 320 of 2012 (O&M) 2 to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence because onus to prove issue No.1 regarding execution of the Will in question was on the plaintiff who had also led evidence in affirmative to prove the Will. It was submitted that issue No.12 that the Will is forged, false and fabricated with onus on the defendants, is only by way of rebuttal of affirmative issue No.1.
On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1-plaintiff contended that in view of issue No.12, the plaintiff has right to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.
I have carefully considered the matter. Apparently the plaitniff has prima facie no right to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence, but the plaintiff can be permitted to examine the handwriting expert by way of additional evidence on payment of costs. Defendant No.1, besides being compensated by way of cost, shall also get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of the aforesaid additional evidence of the plaintiff and, therefore, defendant No.1 shall not suffer any loss or injury.
Resultantly, the instant revision petition is disposed of by modifying the impugned order (Anenxure P-3) passed by trial Court. In modification thereof, respondnet No.1-plaintiff is permitted to examine the handwriting expert by way of additional evidence subject to payment of ` 10,000/- as costs to defendant No.1-petitioner who shall also get opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal of aforesaid additional evidence of the plaintiff.
Pending Civil miscellaneous application, if any, is disposed of as infructuous.
24.09.2013 (L.N.MITTAL)
vandana JUDGE
Vandana
2013.09.27 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document