In a revision petition under Article 226 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court concerning a suit for specific performance, the court dismissed an application to examine handwriting and fingerprint experts in rebuttal because the defendants presented no evidence, warranting no denial of defense.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.7080/2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.7080/2011 Date of decision: 18.11.2011.
Mohinder Singh
....................Petitioner
v.
Gurmit Singh and others
.....................Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh
Present: Mr.Malkeet Singh,Advocate for the petitioner.
Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral)
Plaintiff/petitioner in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has assailed the order dated 31.10.2011 whereby his application for examining Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert in rebuttal has been dismissed.
Briefly the facts are that a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 28.12.2005 was filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on 21.7.2006. The defendant-owner of the suit land set up a plea that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document. Issues were framed on 24.4.2007 and the evidence of the plaintiff/petitioner was closed on 14.5.2010. Thereafter the evidence of the defendants was also closed. It was at the stage of
CR No.7080/2011 2
rebuttal that the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order impugned herein.
After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
It is not denied that the defendants have led no evidence in support of the plea that the agreement is forged and fabricated so as to vest in the plaintiff/petitioner a right to rebut that evidence in rebuttal. It is also not disputed that full opportunity was granted to the plaintiff/petitioner to lead his evidence in affirmative to prove the agreement to sell. It is settled law that in rebuttal plaintiff is given an opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the defendant on the issues the onus of which is cast upon defendant. In this case no such evidence having been led by the defendants, the permission for examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert cannot be granted. In my opinion, the learned trial court by relying on Sardara Singh v. Baljit Singh and others , 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 355, has rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner.
Dismissed.
(Jaswant Singh) Ju dge
18.11.2011 joshi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert in rebuttal should be granted when defendants led no evidence on forgery plea?
Whether trial court acted correctly in dismissing application for expert evidence when respondent failed to place any evidence on issues requiring rebuttal?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sardara Singh v. Baljit Singh and othersRelied on¶18
Sardara Singh v. Baljit Singh and others, 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 355
Mohinder Singh
Gurmit Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
