Revision against order permitting plaintiff to have a handwriting expert examine an impugned Will. The Court held that since onus of proving the Will lay on the defendant and the plaintiff had reserved her right of rebuttal by closing evidence in the affirmative, she could lead expert evidence in rebuttal. Revision dismissed.
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.1032 of 2024
2024:PHHC:031760
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
125 CR No.1032 of 2024 Date of Decision : 05.03.2024
Jeet Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
Ramanjit Kaur and Others ....Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.06 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.1032 of 2024
2024:PHHC:031760
2
mother of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 died intestate on 02.10.2013 and was survived by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 3. It is further the case set up that the defendant-petitioner herein had got transferred the property in his own name on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 22.01.2007 and had obtained a letter of probate from a Court at Kanpur. The Will was also challenged as being forged and fabricated. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner herein as well as the other defendants. In the suit the stand taken by the defendant-petitioner was that the probate qua the unregistered Will dated 22.01.2007 had already been issued. On the basis of pleadings issues were framed. Issue No.4 reads as under :
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.06 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.1032 of 2024
2024:PHHC:031760
3
the ground that the same was forged and fabricated and thus it was incumbent upon the plaintiff-respondent No.1 to have led evidence qua the Will being forged and fabricated and should have examined the handwriting expert while leading her evidence.
“15. In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.06 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.1032 of 2024
2024:PHHC:031760
4
consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra). It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that "the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only," the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashmir Kaur (supra) that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the observations of the Division Bench in Jaswant Kaur's case (supra). The Division Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been clearly held that such a reservation has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Punjab Steel Corporation (supra). In that case the plaintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.06 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
CR No.1032 of 2024
2024:PHHC:031760
5
stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned Single Judge run contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Smt.Jaswant Kaur (supra). No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the same time, it has been held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of Jaswant Kaur (supra) and R.N. Mittal, J. in National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra).”
05.03.2024 jk
( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO
JITENDER KUMAR 2024.03.06 09:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff could examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence after closing her evidence in the affirmative, on an issue whose onus was on the defendant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors.Relied on¶6
[2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jeet Singh
Ramanjit Kaur
Alka Sarin
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
