- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-defendant and challenge has been laid to the judgment dated 14.6.2011 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Addl. District Judge, Muktsar wherein the Lower Appellate Court remanded the matter on the appeal filed by the plaintiff to the trial Court directing it to first decide objections with regard to exhibition of documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P131/A and thereafter decide the suit after statutory period of limitation to file revision had expired. Challenge has also been laid to the subsequent order passed by the trial Court dated 19.8.2011 (Annexure P/3) vide which the aforesaid documents are permitted to be read into evidence at rebuttal stage and the objections raised by the defendant for not exhibiting the said documents were dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has vehemently relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Surjit Singh and others v. Jagtar Singh and others, 2007 145 PunLR 552 to submit that under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC plaintiff could not be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues for which burden of proof was on it. It is the case of the petitioner-defendant that the plaintiff had concluded his evidence on 15.4.2002 and had not reserved any right and thereafter the defendant concluded his evidence on 20.9.2002 and the documents in question were in the knowledge of the plaintiff which had never been placed on record and they could not be allowed to be read into evidence at rebuttal stage.
(2.) The dispute pertains to a suit for recovery which was filed by the respondent-plaintiff alleging that it was a commission agent and loan of Rs. 84, 364/- had been advanced to the petitioner-defendant. Accordingly, the above amount was claimed along with interest at the rate of 2% per month and a sum of Rs. 8,25,000/- was claimed from the defendant. The defence of the defendant was that a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was due against him towards the plaintiff firm and signatures have been obtained on blank papers on 12.12.1998 and he had been detained at the instance of a local MLA. Many signatures were obtained forcibly on many blank papers, registers and Bahies and also got executed an agreement to sell dated 17.12.1998 to show that an earnest money of Rs. 5 lacs had been paid to him. Thus, the documents are forged and fabricated and the same are got signed from him by coercion and pressure. The plaintiff firm examined Amarjit Singh, Accountant as P.W. 1 whereas Anil Kumar, partner was examined as PW2 and the defendant had examined himself as D.W. 1 and two more witnesses namely Balwinder Singh and Swaran Singh as D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 respectively. In rebuttal the plaintiff firm tendered documents Ex. P1/A to Ex. P131/A which was objected to by the counsel for the defendant and vide order dated 27.7.2004 the trial Court kept it open to be decided at the time of final arguments. The matter was brought to this Court by the defendant in Civil Revision No. 4299 of 2005 and this Court directed that the objections regarding exhibition of documents Ex. P1/A to Ex. P131/A be decided first and thereafter the suit be decided on merits.
(3.) The trial Court recorded the statement of counsel for the defendant that the objections be decided at the final stage and thereafter while deciding the suit passed a short order on 14.5.2005 whereby the objections of the defendant were sustained and the documents Ex. P1/A to Ex. P131/A were ordered to be not read into evidence as having not been proved as per law. The suit was dismissed on the same day on merits on the basis of short order passed.;