M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, "the Code") prays for quashing the order dated 7.3.2003 passed by the learned Trial Court restraining the plaintiff- petitioner from adducing additional evidence at the stage of rebuttal and arguments. The aforementioned application was filed by the defendant- respondents.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from interfering in any manner in his actual physical possession in respect of suit land or to dispossess him forcibly therefrom, except in due process of law. The suit was contested and the defendant-respondents set up a counter claim staking claim for possession of two biswas of land. After conclusion of evidence by both the parties, an application by defendant-respondents was filed for not permitting the plaintiff-petitioner to examine Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma, Document Expert, in rebuttal. That application has been allowed on the basic premises that no affirmative evidence in rebuttal would be permissible. The operation part of the order passed by the Trial Court is as under :- "4. Plaintiff has based his claim on various writings alongwith writing dated 28.5.1958 and in order to prove the writings, plaintiff has examined their affidavits in order to rebut the evidence of plaintiff, defendant has examined document expert Dr. Atul Kumar Singla and now plaintiff wants to rebut the rebuttal evidence led by defendant on that issue and Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in its latest decision in Dinesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 2002(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 366 : 2003/Vol. CXXXIII, PLR 75 has held that "plaintiff wanted to produce evidence to rebut the evidence led by defendants, on rebuttal to the evidence led by plaintiff on the issues, the burden of which was on the plaintiff. In my opinion, this cannot be allowed to be done." So, in the present case, also, plaintiff wants to lead rebuttal evidence to rebut the rebuttal evidence led by defendant, which cannot be allowed in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court. So application of defendants is allowed. Mr. Ashok Singla, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has argued that the trial court has committed grave error in law by restraining the plaintiff-petitioner from adducing the expert evidence of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma because the counter claim set up by defendant-respondents is required to be treated as a cross suit of a separate suit under Order 8 rule 6-A(2), (3) and (4) of the Code. According to the learned counsel, the Trial Court has completely failed to consider the aforementioned legal aspects. In order to buttress his stand, learned counsel has pointed out that separate sets of issues have been framed by the trial court. On 22.10.1997 issues were framed on the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner and separate issues were framed in respect of counter claim, on 25.8.1998. Referring to the facts of the present case, learned counsel has drawn my attention to issue No. 3-A framed in the case of the counter-claim, which is with regard to possession of two biswas of land. It has been maintained that writing dated 25.8.1958 regarding delivery of possession of part of the suit land was specifically pleaded as a defence in para 2 of the reply filed by the plaintiff-petitioner to the counter claim set up by defendant-respondents which in their replication has been specifically denied. The aforementioned item has been described as a forged and fabricated document by the defendant-respondents. It has been claimed that the aforementioned expert witness can be produced to rebut the evidence adduced by defendant-respondents as a chance is required to be given in defence to the counter-claim after closing of evidence by the defendant- respondents.
(3.) NONE has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents to controvert the arguments raised by Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate. The matter cannot be adjourned as the revision petition is pending since 2003. On 8.5.2003 this Court has allowed the trial court to hear the arguments but passing of the final order has been stayed. Moreover, a perusal of the record shows that the petition was admitted on 18.7.2005 for final disposal on 19.10.2005. The matter has been listed for 7.12.2005 and 11.1.2006. Therefore, it is not possible to adjourn the matter any further.;