Sukhpal Singh Petitioner v. Chamkaur Singh And Others S

Amit Rawal, J. (Oral):— The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 20.02.2016 (Annexure P-12), whereby, an application to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence vis-a-vis signatures of the vendor from the photocopy (secondary evidence) of the agreement to sell, has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Nitin Thatai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff submits that onus to prove issue No. 11 was upon the defendant-respondents. Vide statement dated 15.09.2015 (Annexure P-7), evidence of the petitioner was closed by reserving the right of rebuttal, onus of which was upon the defendant-respondents. It is in these circumstances, the aforementioned application was filed, therefore, the Court below has committed illegality and perversity in declining the application. In support of his aforementioned contentions, relied upon the judgments of this Court in Monika alias Avneet Monika v. Harpreet Singh 2014 (4) Law Herald 3631; Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Rajwant Kaur & Ors…. S 2014 (2) Law Herald 1138 and Balvinder Singh v. Balbir Singh 2014 (1) Law Herald 585 To contend that when a party leading evidence denied the signatures on the document during the cross examination, necessity arose to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no merit in the aforementioned submissions. It would be apt to reproduce the issues which read thus:-

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.3.2005? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that registered sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 14 vide vasika No. 31343 dated 30.3.2005 is illegal, without consideration, null and void of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No. 2, Beant Singh (now deceased), defendants No. 1 and 8 through their attorney defendant No. 13 in favour of defendant No. 15 vide vasika No. 783 dated 12.4.2005 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No. 2 Beant Singh (now deceased) defendant No. 1 and 8 through their attorney defendant No. 12 in favour of defendant No. 15 through defendant No. 16 vide vasika No. 6035 dated 07.06.2005 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 13 vide vasika No. 10427 dated 01.08.2005 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that sale deed executed by defendant No. 2, Beant Singh (now deceased) defendant No. 2 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

7. Whether the sale deed executed by defendant No. 8 for self and as attorney of defendants No. 3, 4, 5, 6 defendants No. 10, 11, 9 through attorney, defendant No. 13 and Tatima Vasika No. 13650 dated 28.9.2005 of vasika No. 10427 dated 1.8.2005 by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendants No. 12 to 18 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

8. Whether the sale deed dated 13.12.2005 registered per vasika No. 20299 dated 14.12.2005 by defendant No. 2 through defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant No. 20 is illegal, without consideration, null and void, of no legal consequence and inoperative on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP

9. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

10. Whether the plaintiff is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the suit? OPD

11. Whether agreement to sell dated 30.3.2005 is false, fabricated and forged document? OPD

12. Relief.”

4. It has been conceded before this Court that the respondent-defendants have not examined the handwriting expert, whereas, on the contrary, the petitioner-plaintiff, with the permission of the Court, allegedly proved the agreement to sell through the testimony of one attesting witness by way of secondary evidence. Once the defendants have not led any evidence on issue No. 11 by examining the handwriting expert, right reserved as per the statement noticed above would not clothe the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal, in essence, in the absence of any evidence on issue No. 11, there is no requirement of law to rebut the same. If at all, the plaintiff was aware that the agreement to sell was an act of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation, he could have led the evidence in affirmative by examining the handwriting expert.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the ratio decidendi culled out in the aforementioned judgments but the fact remains that in the aforementioned judgments, the defendants had led evidence on the issues, onus of which was upon them. as per the statement noticed above, defendants have not examined any handwriting expert in the present case, therefore, there was no need of rebuttal evidence.

6. Keeping in view the aforementioned observations, I do not find any illegality and perversity in the impugned order, much less, the same cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction.

7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.