Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants- petitioners against the order dated 16.11.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr Divn), Malerkotla whereby the plaintiffs-respondents have been allowed to examine a handwriting expert in their rebuttal evidence to prove documents, the onus of proof of which was on them.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from dispossessing them from the land measuring 142 Bighas 10 Biswas, as detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in village Bhoodan, Tehsil Malerkotla, forcibly, illegally and without due process of law; besides for restraining the defendants-petitioners from alienating by way of sale, mortgage, exchange, gift or in any other manner the suit land. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs-respondents, in their rebuttal evidence, prayed for examination of a handwriting expert. It was submitted by the plaintiffs-respondents that their evidence in the affirmative was concluded on 11.3.1998 and they had reserved their right to produce evidence in rebuttal. Jagdev Singh (defendant-1) in his evidence, it is stated, did not clear the position as to whether the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and rapat roznamcha which was got entered with the Halqa Patwari on 29.7.1994 bears his signatures. The case set up by the plaintiffs-respondents is that the suit property was partitioned between the parties by way of a memo of partition dated 12.5.1989. Rapat roznamcha in this regard was got entered with the Halqa Patwari. The defendant-1 in his written statement did not deny his signatures on the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and rapat roznamcha that was entered with the Halqa Patwari. He simply stated that the documents were void and a result of fraud. However, when the said Rapat roznamcha was put to defendant-1 during his cross examination, he did not specifically state whether the said documents bear his signatures. For this purpose, the plaintiffs-respondents submitted an application for examination of a handwriting expert to compare the signatures of Jagdev Singh (defendant-1) on the memo of partition and the rapat roznamcha (Ex P1) with his other standard signatures. The defendants- petitioners opposed the said prayer and stated that the plaintiffs should have examined the hand writing expert while leading their evidence in the affirmative. The learned Civil Judge (Jr Divn), as already noticed, allowed the application of the plaintiffs-respondents and permitted them to examine a hand writing expert in their rebuttal evidence, which order, as already noticed, is assailed by way of the present petition.

7. In terms of the aforesaid dictum, it is evident that the plaintiffs-respondents cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of proof of which is on them. The plaintiffs-respondents had concluded their evidence in the affirmative on 11.3.1998 and reserved their right to produce evidence in rebuttal. However, the onus to prove the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and the rapat roznamcha which was got entered with the Halqa Patwari on 29.7.1994 was on them (plaintiffs-respondents). Therefore, they could not examine the handwriting expert as a matter of right. Therefore, it is to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case whether the plaintiffs can examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal. The ground for examination of the handwriting expert is that the defendant- Jagdev Singh while appearing in the witness box did not give clear answer as regards his signatures on the memo of partition dated 12.5.1989 and the rapat roznamcha which was got entered with the Halqa Patwari on 29.7.1994. In this regard, it is appropriate to note that it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case in accordance with law on the basis of evidence. The fact that Jagdev Singh in his cross-examination did not make clear the point as to whether the said documents bear his signatures would not per se entitle the plaintiffs to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal although for not giving answers to the questions posed during cross-examination may entail the drawing of an adverse inference for the purposes of appreciation of evidence. However, it would not give a right to the plaintiffs to make clear the point by producing a handwriting expert at that stage. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court while passing the impugned order has violated the procedure provided for leading evidence which has resulted in causing prejudice to the petitioners and would vitiate the impugned order.