VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Nakodar, vide which an application moved by respondent-plaintiff for leading evidence in rebuttal, was allowed.
(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent moved an application on 21.2.2006 with a prayer to lead evidence in rebuttal. The plaintiff-respondent sought to summon the Head Registration Clerk, D.C. Office, Jalandhar alongwith sale deed bearing document No. 2203 dated 6.2.1985, sale-deed bearing document No. 570 dated 2.6.1987, sale-deed dated 4.8.1987, sale-deed bearing document No. 1542 dated 9.11.1990 executed by Resham Singh son of Charan Singh in favour of different persons. The plaintiff-respondent also sought permission for allowing the hand-writing expert to take photographs. It was also the case of the plaintiff-respondent that the official of D.C. Office, Jalandhar has brought the original copies and that the agreement to sell dated 30.7.1990 is basis of the suit between the parties. It was also prayed that Arvind Sood, witness who was present, be permitted to take the photographs of the same for the purpose of rebuttal evidence. The plea of the defendant-petitioner was that onus to prove the issue as to whether Resham Singh deceased executed the agreement dated 30.7.1990 and received Rs. 35,000/- was on the plaintiff, who availed number of opportunities and finally closed his evidence on 11.3.1990; the petitioner- defendant had already led evidence to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiff-respondent. It was claimed that the plaintiff-respondent cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues when the burden of proof was on the plaintiff-respondents. It was claimed that the application was not maintainable. It was also claimed that the plaintiff wanted to prove the signatures from the sale-deeds of Resham Singh, but no original document was called for comparison and therefore, secondary evidence of the same could not be permitted. The application was said to be vague and it was claimed that original sale-deed was not produced and therefore, application be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED trial Court allowed the application observing that the suit was based on agreement to sell dated 30.7.1990 and the plaintiff-respondent has led his evidence in affirmative and closed the same. The petitioner-defendant examined the expert witness besides other evidence. It was also observed that the plaintiff-respondent got prepared the report of expert witness after obtaining specimen from the sale deeds executed by Resham Singh. The record was not secondary evidence but the primary evidence as the original copy is retained in the office of Tehsildar at the time of registration. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that the proposed evidence was material to decide the controversy involved in the suit. Therefore, mere technicalities of law could not be used to obstruct the plaintiff-respondent to produce such kind of evidence based on the documents.;