Dismissed¶59

Harmeet Singh (Since Deceased) Represented through His Legal Representatives etc. v. Baghel Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2025CR/8152/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CR-8152-2018(O&M) | High Court of Punjab and Haryana | Archana Puri, J. | 05-09-2025 | Additional evidence (handwriting/fingerprint expert) allowed at rebuttal stage where trial Court failed to frame issue on agreement being forged/fabricated; procedural law handmaid to justice, no blanket bar; four precedents distinguished; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the impugned order allowing the respondent-plaintiff's application for additional evidence was left undisturbed and the revision petition was dismissed. ¶59

Harmeet Singh (Since Deceased) Represented through His Legal Representatives etc. Vs Baghel Singh — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the impugned order allowing the respondent-plaintiff's application for additional evidence was left undisturbed and the revision petition was dismissed.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-plaintiff, having closed his evidence in affirmative, could be permitted to lead additional evidence (examination of a handwriting and fingerprint expert) at the rebuttal stage, on an issue the onus of which lay upon him. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

While not disputing the law settled in the case law relied upon by the petitioners, the Court held the facts of the case in hand distinguishable from the controversy adjudicated in that case law.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The application for additional evidence should not be shut out solely on account of the case having come to the rebuttal stage, nor on the ground that the evidence could not be led in view of issue No.1 as framed by the trial Court.

¶54

Key takeaways

The issues framed by the trial Court were not happily framed: no specific issue as to the agreement being forged and fabricated was framed; had it been framed, the onus of proving it would have lain upon the defendants and the present application would never have arisen.ratio¶47
Since there was lapse on the part of the trial Court in not framing the appropriate issue, the respondent-plaintiff cannot be deprived of the opportunity to lead evidence which he could have led had the issue been properly framed.ratio¶52
Principles of procedural law are handmaid to justice; no party can be denied the right to examine any witness on the mere ground that the evidence could have been adduced while adducing affirmative evidence; such blanket rule can never be followed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Archana Puri, J.), CR-8152-2018(O&M), decided 05.09.2025: Revision against the trial Court's order dated 07.08.2018 permitting the respondent-plaintiff, at the rebuttal-evidence stage, to lead additional evidence by examining a handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the signatures of Harmeet Singh on an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2008, which the petitioners-defendants had pleaded to be forged and fabricated. Counsel for the petitioners, relying on Smt. Jaswant Kaur (1984(1) ILR (Punjab) 97), National Fertilizers Ltd. (1982 PLR 322), Jagdev Singh (2007(1) RCR (Civil) 794) and Avtar Singh (2015(5) RCR (Civil) 625), argued that a plaintiff who has closed his affirmative evidence cannot lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue whose onus was his. The Court accepted the settled law but held the facts distinguishable: the trial Court had lapsed in not framing a specific issue on forgery/fabrication, so the plaintiff never had a proper opportunity of rebuttal; had such issue been framed, the onus would have been on the defendants and the application would never have arisen. Procedural law being handmaid to justice, no party can be denied the right to examine any witness merely because the evidence could have been adduced earlier, and such blanket rule can never be followed; the validity of the agreement is to be adjudicated by the trial Court at the final stage. The trial Court was held not to have erred; the impugned order warranted no interference and the revision petition was dismissed. File marks reportable as 'Yes/No'.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CR-8152-2018(O&M) Date of Decision: September 05, 2025

¶3

Harmeet Singh through his LRs and others

...Petitioners

Versus

Baghel Singh

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

¶9

Present: Mr.Abhishek Singla and Mr.Gurinder Singh, Advocates for the petitioners.

¶10

Mr.Rajan Bansal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶11

¶12

ARCHANA PURI, J.

¶13

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 07.08.2018 passed by learned trial Court, whereby, an application for leading additional evidence, to examine handwriting and fingerprint expert, filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed, at the stage of rebuttal evidence.

¶14

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent made appearance

¶15

through counsel.

¶16

Counsel for the parties heard.

¶17

The essential facts, to be noticed, are as follows:-

¶18

That, initially, respondent-plaintiff Baghel Singh had filed a suit for

¶19

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CR-8152-2018

¶21

-2-

¶22

possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2008, allegedly executed by Harmeet Singh, in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, for sale of plot measuring 500 sq. yards and further also sought relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/petitioners from alienation of the suit property. In the alternative, relief was sought, vis-a-vis, suit for recovery of Rs.16,31,250/-.

¶23

However, in the written statement, the petitioners-defendants

¶24

had denied about Harmeet Singh to have ever agreed to sell the suit plot to the respondent-plaintiff, nor he had received any earnest money, whatsoever. Further, it was also pleaded that the alleged agreement to sell dated 30.12.2008, is a false and fabricated document and does not bear the signatures of Harmeet Singh.

¶25

It is relevant to mention that learned trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, had framed the following issues:-

¶26

“(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance of agreement to sale dated 30.12.2008 as prayed for?OPP

¶27

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP

¶28

(iii) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit?OPD

¶29

(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable? OPD

¶30

(v) Whether the plaintiff has not come with clean hands?

¶31

(vi) Relief.”

¶32

The evidence was adduced by the respondent-plaintiff. Even,

¶33

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶34

CR-8152-2018

¶35

-3-

¶36

after the closure of the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff, the petitionersdefendants had also led evidence. When the case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence, the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application for leading additional evidence, for examination of handwriting and fingerprint expert, as a witness for the comparison of signatures of Harmeet Singh on disputed agreement.

¶37

After seeking reply and on hearing counsel for the parties, vide impugned order dated 07.08.2018, the said application was allowed.

¶38

Being aggrieved, the petitioners-defendants has filed the revision petition in hand.

¶39

At the very outset, now it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent-plaintiff had closed his evidence on 22.09.2017 and thereafter, the defendants-petitioners had closed their evidence and the case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence and arguments. However, at this stage, no such application for additional evidence could be allowed, as the respondent-plaintiff had closed his evidence in affirmative and therefore, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal, in respect of an issue, the ‘onus’ of which was upon the respondent-plaintiff.

¶40

In this regard, to so strengthen his claim, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Smt.Jaswant Kaur anr. vs. Devinder Singh and ors. (D.B.) 1984(1) ILR (Punjab) 97 , National Fertilizers Ltd., Bathinda vs. Municipal Committee, Bathinda, 1982 PLR 322 , J agdev Singh vs. Darshan Singh, 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 794 and Avtar Singh vs. Baldev Singh, 2015(5) RCR (Civil) 625 . In fact, on the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it is emphatically summed up that when the

¶41

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶42

CR-8152-2018

¶43

-4-

¶44

respondent-plaintiff had closed his evidence in affirmative, he could not be allowed to lead evidence, the ‘onus’ of which issue, was upon him. In the maximum, it could have been led, before the other party began the evidence.

¶45

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the application is for additional evidence and it is not asserted about the evidence to be led in rebuttal evidence.

¶46

Even though, plethora of case law has been cited by learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants, but however, there is no dispute about the law settled in the aforesaid case law. However, the facts of the case in hand, are distinguishable from the controversy, which was adjudicated in the aforesaid case law. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that in view of the claim of the agreement to sell, having executed, at the instance of Harmeet Singh, as asserted in the plaint, a specific plea was taken in the written statement that the said agreement was never executed and Harmeet Singh had never received any earnest money. Besides the same, it was asserted that the agreement to sell dated 30.12.2008 is forged and fabricated and does not bear the signatures of Harmeet Singh.

¶47

Considering these pleadings of the parties, the issues, as detailed aforesaid, are not happily framed. No specific issue, with regard to agreement in question, to be forged and fabricated has been framed. Had this issue been framed, the onus of proving of the same, would be upon the defendants and had it been so framed, then the question of filing of any application, as now filed, would never have arisen, as there would have been an opportunity provided/availed by the respondent-plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the petitioners-defendants.

¶48

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶49

CR-8152-2018

¶50

-5-

¶51

However, such an issue has not been framed. There is lapse on the part of the trial Court and therefore, considering the same, it is pertinent to note that the finding with regard to the legality and validity of the questioned agreement has to be and shall be adjudicated by the trial Court, at the final stage.

¶52

In the given circumstances, when there was lapse, on the part of the trial Court, in not framing the appropriate issue, the respondent-plaintiff, as such, cannot be deprived of an opportunity to lead evidence, which he could have been able to lead, had the issue been properly framed. Thus, it has to be considered that principles of procedural law are handmaid to justice. No party can be denied the right to examine any witness, on the mere ground that this evidence that the party could have adduced, at that time, when he was adducing affirmative evidence. Such blanket rule, can never be followed.

¶53

The facts and circumstances in the individual case, have to be considered to decide as to how the provision of the Code are to be applied to do substantial justice between the parties. In the additional evidence, the respondent-plaintiff intended to bring on record the report furnished by the handwriting and fingerprint expert, examined in another case, in which mother of Harmeet Singh was also a party and in this case, photochart of disputed and standard signatures of Harmeet Singh was also there.

¶54

Considering the aforesaid circumstances of the case, this Court, as such, do not consider that solely, on account of the case, having come at the rebuttal stage, this application should be shut out, on account, that this evidence, could not be led, in view of issue No.1 framed by the trial Court.

¶55

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶56

CR-8152-2018

¶57

-6-

¶58

However, while framing issues, as observed aforesaid, amiss was given by the trial Court to the framing of the issue, relating to the agreement in question to be forged and fabricated, wherein, an opportunity of rebuttal would have been otherwise also available to the respondent-plaintiff.

¶59

Considering the gravity of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered view, the trial Court has not fallen into error, in allowing the application for additional evidence. Hence, the impugned order warrants no interference. As such, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.

¶60

September 05, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes/No

¶61

VINEET GULATI 2025.09.10 10:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Harmeet Singh (Since Deceased) Represented through His Legal Representatives etc. v. Baghel Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmeet Singh (Since Deceased) Represented through His Legal Representatives etc. v. Baghel Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju and Others Vs Jonny

Balpreet Kaur Vs Jungsher Singh Kaler

Bharti Thakur Vs Pankaj Rana

Shreya Chowdhary Vs Shubham Mahajan

Priyanka Kaushik Vs Siddharth Kaushik

Nancy Vs Rahul Sharma