Delhi District Court
This Order Of Mine Shall Decide The ... vs Pramod Kumar on 7 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRANJAL ANEJA, LD. CIVIL JUDGE-06/
CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit. No. 77/14 07.07.2015
ISHWAR SINGH V. PRAMOD KUMAR
ORDER
1. This order of mine shall decide the application u/o XVIII rule 3 CPC dt. 24.02.2015 filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
2. It is stated in the application that DE has been closed and during cross examination defendant deliberately with malafide intentions denied his signatures on the rent receipts EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3. It is contended that the report of handwriting expert is essential to sort out the truth that whether these rent receipts have been signed by the defendant or not which would decide the issue of relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. It is prayed that plaintiff/ applicant be allowed to produce the handwriting expert as a witness in rebuttal and be permitted to place on record the original counterfoils of EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3.
3. In reply, it is contended that the defendant has denied his possession in the suit property even in his reply to the legal notice. That the defendant has also denied the issuance of rent receipts by stating that plaintiff has forged and fabricated the counterfoil of the rent receipts. The application is opposed.
Suit. No. 77/14 Page No. 1 of 3Ishwar Singh V. Pramod Kumar On 07th July, 2015
4. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff for leading evidence in rebuttal with regard to rent receipts (counterfoils) EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3. Plaintiff wants to call handwriting expert to prove the signatures of the defendant on these counterfoils.
6. It is observed that plaintiff averred in the plaint that defendant used to sign the counterfoils of the rent receipts to which the defendant denied by contending that the plaintiff has forged and fabricated the counterfoil of the rent receipts in the name of the defendant. It is further seen that the plaintiff in his evidence relied upon the rent receipts EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3 as the examination in chief dt. 22.03.2011 of plaintiff/ PW-1 records that PW-1 relies upon these counterfoils of rent receipts as EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3. It is thus clear that the plaintiff has brought these counterfoils in his evidence on his turn in proving his case and did not reserve his right to lead evidence on this issue of counterfoils to be taken in rebuttal evidence. Rather plaintiff has also extensively cross- examined defendant/ DW-1 upon this issue of counterfoils of rent receipts EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3. Defendant has in his pleadings taken the stand that plaintiff forged and fabricated the rent receipts and he maintained his stand in his affidavit in evidence EX DW 1/A Suit. No. 77/14 Page No. 2 of 3 Ishwar Singh V. Pramod Kumar On 07th July, 2015 with respect to the counterfoils. Thus, defendant has not brought anything new in his evidence for which chance of rebuttal, in the manner sought, can be granted to the plaintiff especially when he has exhibited these counterfoils in his evidence and taken his chance to prove them. Merely, that the defendant/ DW-1 in his cross- examination has denied these counterfoils, it cannot give the plaintiff a chance for rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff ought to have brought the expert witness, as desired, during his evidence as the burden of proving these counterfoils was primarily upon him. Therefore, there is no occasion which calls for any rebuttal evidence as prayed.
7. As far as taking on record the original counterfoils is concerned, there appears to be no impediment in taking them on record since the certified copies have already been exhibited as EX PW 1/1 to EX PW 1/3.
8. In view of the above, the application is partly allowed.
Announced in open Court (PRANJAL ANEJA)
on 07.07.2015 CIVIL JUDGE-06, CENTRAL
THC/DELHI/07.07.2015
Suit. No. 77/14 Page No. 3 of 3
Ishwar Singh V. Pramod Kumar On 07th July, 2015