C.R.No.6715 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.R.No.6715 of 2009
Date of Decision : 17.11.2009
Bhoop Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Krishna and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
Present: Mr. S.S.Godara, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the
learned trial Court on 12.11.2009, whereby an application filed by the
plaintiff-petitioner for permission to examine hand-writing expert in
evidence either in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence was declined.
The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance of an
agreement to sell dated 20.10.2005. In the said suit, the defendant denied
the execution of the agreement and also stated that his signatures might
have been obtained on the blank papers. One of the issue framed was
whether the plaintiff is entitled to get possession of the disputed property
by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 21.10.2005
on the grounds as alleged in the plaint. To succeed on the said issue, the
plaintiff was required to prove the due execution of the agreement to sell.
The plaintiff moved the present application for permission to
lead additional evidence or to lead evidence in rebuttal, but the same has
been declined by the learned trial Court for the reason that the plaintiff
was given ample opportunities to lead his evidence in affirmative, to
C.R.No.6715 of 2009 2
prove the due execution of the agreement to sell. By filing the present
application, the plaintiff wants to fill-up the lacuna in the evidence led in
affirmative. It was found that no case is made out for permission to lead
additional evidence as the defendant from the very beginning has denied
the signatures on the alleged agreement to sell. The defendant has
pleaded that the agreement is forged and fabricated, therefore, the onus
was on the plaintiff to examine the hand-writing expert, while leading his
evidence in affirmative.
The reasoning given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to
be illegal or unwarranted in any manner. The evidence of an expert was
required to be produced by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff was leading
his evidence in affirmative. The defendant has denied the execution of
the agreement in the written-statement. Therefore, the plaintiff was
aware of the evidence required to be examined by him in support of his
plea of due execution of the agreement. Having failed to do so, the
plaintiff cannot be permitted to fill-up the lacuna by seeking permission
to lead additional evidence or to lead evidence in rebuttal.
In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or
irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may
warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition.
Dismissed.
17.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE