Balwant Singh and Others vs Karamveer

Rajan Gupta, J.—Present revision petition is directed against the order dated 2.11.2011, passed by the trial court allowing application for examining a Handwriting Expert in rebuttal evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order. He submits that trial court has gravely erred in allowing the plaintiff to examine Handwriting Expert in rebuttal to evidence of DW2. According to him, no such right was reserved by the plaintiff during the proceedings. He has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this court reported as Mohinder Singh Vs. Balbir Singh and Others

Learned counsel for the respondent has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. He submits that the right to rebut was reserved by the plaintiff. He has produced a certified copy of the statement made before the court on 7.6.2010. According to him, plaintiff is entitled to rebut the evidence led by the defendants, particularly on a issue raised in defendants'' evidence which plaintiff could not have anticipated. He has placed reliance on judgment reported as Surjit Singh and Others Vs. Jagtar Singh and Others,

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,18,224.70 P. He closed his evidence on 7.6.2010. In defence, defendants examined a Handwriting Expert as DW2. This witness deposed regarding addition/alteration in the Bahi entries. Plaintiff, thus, sought to examine a Handwriting Expert in rebuttal. He contended before the court that he could not have anticipated that defendants would examine a witness who would depose regarding alteration in Bahi entries. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to examine Handwriting Expert at the time of affirmative evidence as no such issue was before the court. After deposition of DW2, it became necessary to examine a Handwriting Expert. After considering rival contentions, trial court allowed an opportunity to the plaintiff to examine the expert for proper adjudication of the case. I find no legal infirmity with the order. A Division Bench of this court in Surjit Singh''s case (supra) held that in the eventuality plaintiff reserves the right to lead evidence in rebuttal, he can be allowed to lead evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am of the considered view that trial court rightly allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence as defendants raised a new question by examining a Handwriting Expert who deposed that there had been alteration/addition in Bahi entries. Plaintiff was left with no option but to examine an expert. This apart, it is evident that plaintiff had reserved his right to lead the evidence in rebuttal. A certified copy of the statement in this regard has been produced in court by counsel for plaintiff/respondent. Same is taken on record as Mark ''A''. In view of this, Single Bench judgment of this court in Mohinder Singh''s case (supra) cannot help the case of the petitioner. There is, thus, no merit in the revision petition. Dismissed.