Subhash Chand Gupta Vs. Jiya Lal Sharma and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sham sunder, j.1. this revision-petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, is directed, against the order dated 13.06.09, rendered by the court of civil judge (senior division), kurukshetra, vide which, it dismissed the application, filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, at the time of rebuttal evidence, to get the questioned signatures of the defendant/respondent, compared from a handwriting and finger prints expert, with his specimen signatures.2. the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, filed a suit for specific performance, on the basis of the agreement to sell executed, in his favour, by the defendant/respondent.3. in the written statement, the defendant/respondent, denied the execution of the agreement to sell, and receipt of earnest money.4. when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, an application, was moved by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, for the aforesaid purpose, which was dismissed by the court below, vide the order impugned.5. feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.6. i have heard the counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.7. the counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the trial court, was wrong, in dismissing the application, as comparison of questioned signatures of the defendant/respondent, on the agreement to sell, with his specimen signatures, was essential, to disprove his assertion, that he did not execute the agreement to sell. he further submitted that, with a view, to impart substantial justice, the court below, was not required to enter into procedural wrangles, to reject the application. he further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside.8. after giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. since the defendant/respondent, denied the execution of the agreement to sell, in the written statement, it was for the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, to prove the same, by leading whatever evidence, he wanted to lead, in affirmative. admittedly, he led his evidence, and closed the same, but he did not think it proper, to examine the handwriting and finger prints expert, at that time. he closed the evidence, in affirmative, with his eyes wide open. even the defendant, closed his evidence. thereafter, when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, he moved the application, in which, the order impugned, was pressed. if the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, failed to lead evidence, by way of examining the handwriting and finger prints expert, in evidence, which was led, in affirmative, to prove the execution of the agreement to sell, he could not be allowed, to lead the same, in rebuttal. the plaintiff/revision-petitioner, could lead evidence, in rebuttal only, in respect of the issues, of which, the onus lay upon the defendant. in surjit singh and ors. v. jagtar singh and ors. (2007)145 p.l.r. 552 (d.b.), a case-decided by a division bench of this court, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that order 18 rule 3, would not give a right to the plaintiff, to lead evidence, in rebuttal, on issues, of which, the onus of proof was on them. it was further held that accepting any other interpretation, would be to ignore a vital part of order 18 rule 3 cpc. the rule clearly postulates that 'that party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence, on these issues, or reserve 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. while construing a statutory provision, the court, cannot reconstruct it. similar principle of law, was laid down in dinesh kumar v. state of haryana and ors. 2003 (1) c.c.c. 445, and m/s thind traders v. jaswant kaur and ors., c.r. no. 1500 of 2004, decided by this court. the order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under article 227 of the constitution of india. the submission of the counsel for the revision-petitioner, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.9. for the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed.