- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, vide which the application moved by the petitioners (legal representatives of deceased plaintiff Dr. Jai Dev) to examine the handwriting expert for comparison of the signatures of deceased plaintiff Dr. Jai Dev, has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that plaintiff Dr. Jai Dev has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.5,77,333/- on account of the arrears of salary/examination remuneration fees/damages along with interest. The relief of mandatory injunction has also been sought directing the defendants to release the salary of the plaintiff. He contended that in the written statement the defendants/respondents have taken the plea that the plaintiff has concealed the material facts and issue No.4 was framed by the learned trial Court. The burden to prove this issue was upon the defendants. He contended that the petitioners had a right to lead the rebuttal evidence under Issue No.4, as the defendants have taken the plea in the written statement that the fact regarding resignation has been concealed by the plaintiff. He contended that the petitioners wanted to examine the handwriting expert to get the signature of deceased-plaintiff Dr. Jai Devi compared to show that he had never submitted any resignation. To support his contentions, he relied upon cases Surjit Singh & Ors. Vs. Jagtar Singh & Ors., 2007 AIR(P&H) 1, Pappu @ Rai Singh Vs. Smt. Chander Wati and others, 2012 168 PunLR 607 and Hazari Vs. Har Pal and others CR No.4097 of 2015 decided on 03.7.2015.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that Issue No.4 was only a formal issue. The plaintiff was to prove his case in affirmative as to how he was entitled for the amount claimed in the suit. The defendants have taken the plea in the written statement that he has resigned, so the plaintiff should have been lead the evidence in affirmative and has no right to lead the evidence in rebuttal. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned order.;