CR-4076 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 117 Sukhdeep Singh Harbant Kaur and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR Present: SUVIR SEHGAL J. 1. by Civil Judge, Junior Division, SBS Nagar, whereby application filed for leading additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has approached this Court, by way of present revision petition. 4076-2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sukhdeep Singh Vs. Harbant Kaur and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR Present:- Mr. Sarju Puri Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 to 4 and 6 to 8. Service of respondent No.5 has been dispensed with by this Court, vide order dated 25 SUVIR SEHGAL J. Assailing order dated 02.05.2016, Annexure P by Civil Judge, Junior Division, SBS Nagar, whereby application filed for leading additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has approached this Court, by way of present revision petition. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4076-2016 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.03.2025 … Petitioner … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Mr. Sarju Puri Advocate Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate None for respondents No.2 to 4 and 6 to 8. Service of respondent No.5 has been dispensed with by this Court, vide order dated 25.08.2022. Assailing order dated 02.05.2016, Annexure P-9, passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, SBS Nagar, whereby application filed for leading additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has approached this Court, by , passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, SBS Nagar, whereby application filed for leading additional evidence by examining a handwriting expert has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff No.1 has approached this Court, by Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 2. to a Will dated 25.03.201 Gurbachan Kaur, who had thumb marked it. He submits that in order to prove the due execution of the Will, comparison of thumb impression of the testator with her standard thumb impression on the registered Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2001 is essential. It is his case that the petitioner could not lay his hands on the original Power of Attorney, which is an admitted document and af application Annexure P in rejecting the application, while holding that an expert cannot be examined in rebuttal, nor can additional evidence be produced by the plaintiff. He has contended th Section 151 CPC to permit production of additional evidence at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the case. He asserts that deletion of Order 18 Rule 17 mean that addi reliance upon: 4076-2016 (O&M) Counsel for the petitioner has urged that dispute pertains to a Will dated 25.03.2010, which was executed by Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, who had thumb marked it. He submits that in order to prove the due execution of the Will, comparison of thumb ression of the testator with her standard thumb impression on the registered Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2001 is essential. It is his case that the petitioner could not lay his hands on the original Power of Attorney, which is an admitted document and af application Annexure P-7 has been filed, but the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application, while holding that an expert cannot be examined in rebuttal, nor can additional evidence be produced by the plaintiff. He has contended that the Court has wide powers under Section 151 CPC to permit production of additional evidence at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the case. He asserts that deletion of Order 18 Rule 17 mean that additional evidence cannot be received at all. He has placed reliance upon:- i) K.K.Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy; 2011(2) SCC 275; (ii) Government Senior Secondary School Versus Lilu Ram and others, 2012(3) PLR 403 (iii) Baljit Singh Versus Manjit Singh 625. -2- Counsel for the petitioner has urged that dispute pertains , which was executed by Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, who had thumb marked it. He submits that in order to prove the due execution of the Will, comparison of thumb ression of the testator with her standard thumb impression on the registered Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2001 is essential. It is his case that the petitioner could not lay his hands on the original Power of Attorney, which is an admitted document and after locating it, 7 has been filed, but the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application, while holding that an expert cannot be examined in rebuttal, nor can additional evidence be produced by the at the Court has wide powers under Section 151 CPC to permit production of additional evidence at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the case. He asserts that deletion of Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC does not tional evidence cannot be received at all. He has placed K.K.Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy; 2011(2) Government Senior Secondary School Versus Lilu Ram and others, 2012(3) PLR 403; and Baljit Singh Versus Manjit Singh, 2014(1) PLR Counsel for the petitioner has urged that dispute pertains , which was executed by Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur, who had thumb marked it. He submits that in order to prove the due execution of the Will, comparison of thumb ression of the testator with her standard thumb impression on the registered Power of Attorney dated 11.06.2001 is essential. It is his case that the petitioner could not lay his hands on the original Power ter locating it, 7 has been filed, but the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application, while holding that an expert cannot be examined in rebuttal, nor can additional evidence be produced by the at the Court has wide powers under Section 151 CPC to permit production of additional evidence at any stage of the suit, provided it is necessary for the just decision of the A CPC does not tional evidence cannot be received at all. He has placed K.K.Velusamy Versus N. Palanisamy; 2011(2) Government Senior Secondary School Versus , 2014(1) PLR Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 3. respondent No.1/defendant No.1, has urged that after the closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal, regarding issues, the onu plaintiff. It is his categoric assertion that plaintiff can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues, in which the burden of proof is on the defendant unless the plaintiff specifically reserves his right to do so. R 4. considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended with the paper book. 4076-2016 (O&M) While supporting the impugned order, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1, has urged that after the closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal, regarding issues, the onu plaintiff. It is his categoric assertion that plaintiff can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues, in which the burden of proof is on the defendant unless the plaintiff specifically reserves his right to do so. Reliance has been placed by him upon: (i) Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) PLR 552; (ii) Gurcharan Singh and others Versus Sukhmander Singh and others, 2018 (4) Civil Court Cases 49; (iii) Parmod Kumar Vesus Bhagat Singh, 2018(4) PLR 741; (iv) Raghbir and others Versus Parkash and others, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3527; (v) Shri Sangmeshwar Mahadev Gramo Udyog Mandal Versus Ajmer Singh and another, 2014(49) RCR (Civil) 512; (vi) Ram Kumar Versus Raj Kumar and others, 2014(2) PLR 536. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended with the paper book. -3- While supporting the impugned order, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1, has urged that after the closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal, regarding issues, the onus of which is on the plaintiff. It is his categoric assertion that plaintiff can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues, in which the burden of proof is on the defendant unless the plaintiff specifically reserves his eliance has been placed by him upon: Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and others, 2007(1) PLR 552; Gurcharan Singh and others Versus Sukhmander Singh and others, 2018 (4) Civil Parmod Kumar Vesus Bhagat Singh, 2018(4) ghbir and others Versus Parkash and others, 2016 (4) Law Herald 3527; Shri Sangmeshwar Mahadev Gramo Udyog Mandal Versus Ajmer Singh and another, 2014(49) RCR (Civil) 512; and Ram Kumar Versus Raj Kumar and others, d counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the documents appended with the paper book. While supporting the impugned order, counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.1, has urged that after the closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce s of which is on the plaintiff. It is his categoric assertion that plaintiff can be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal only on the issues, in which the burden of proof is on the defendant unless the plaintiff specifically reserves his Surjit Singh and others Versus Jagtar Singh and Gurcharan Singh and others Versus Sukhmander Singh and others, 2018 (4) Civil Parmod Kumar Vesus Bhagat Singh, 2018(4) ghbir and others Versus Parkash and others, Shri Sangmeshwar Mahadev Gramo Udyog Mandal Versus Ajmer Singh and another, Ram Kumar Versus Raj Kumar and others, d counsel for the parties and considered their respective submissions besides examining the Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 5. effect that plaintiff No.1, who is a minor and under the care protection of his mother, plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 25.03.2010. A further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No. 2419 o Kaur, deceased is nonest and inoperative qua him with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining contesting defendants from interfering in his possession or from alienating the suit land. Upon notice, suit is being cont has been filed by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2012. The core question to be determined by the Trial Court is whether Will dated 25.03.2010, executed by Bachan Kaur, deceased, is a legal and valid document and that as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and closed his evidence. The order passed by the trial Court on 18.05.2015 hereunder: 4076-2016 (O&M) Suit, Annexure P-1, has filed for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1, who is a minor and under the care protection of his mother, plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 25.03.2010. A further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No. 2419 o Kaur, deceased is nonest and inoperative qua him with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining contesting defendants from interfering in his possession or from alienating the suit land. Upon notice, suit is being contested and a written statement, Annexure P has been filed by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2012. The core question to be determined by the Trial Court is whether Will dated 25.03.2010, ecuted by Bachan Kaur, deceased, is a legal and valid document and that as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and closed his evidence. The order passed by the trial Court on 18.05.2015 hereunder:- “Sukhdeep Singh V Harbans Kaur Present: Sh. VS Pahwa Adv counsel for plaintiff Sh. Daljit Singh Adv counsel for defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 ex parte Suit against deft. No.3 to 5 already DAW Sh. Vikas Narad Adv counsel for Sh. SK Diwan Adv counsel for defendant No.7 -4- 1, has filed for the declaration to the effect that plaintiff No.1, who is a minor and under the care and protection of his mother, plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 25.03.2010. A further declaration has been sought to the effect that mutation No. 2419 of the estate of Bachan Kaur, deceased is nonest and inoperative qua him with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining contesting defendants from interfering in his possession or from alienating the suit land. Upon ested and a written statement, Annexure P-5, has been filed by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2012. The core question to be determined by the Trial Court is whether Will dated 25.03.2010, ecuted by Bachan Kaur, deceased, is a legal and valid document and that as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and closed his evidence. The order passed by the trial Court on 18.05.2015 is reproduced Sukhdeep Singh V Harbans Kaur Present: Sh. VS Pahwa Adv counsel for plaintiff Sh. Daljit Singh Adv counsel for defendant No.1 Defendant No.2 ex parte Suit against deft. No.3 to 5 already DAW Sh. Vikas Narad Adv counsel for defendant No.6 Sh. SK Diwan Adv counsel for defendant No.7 1, has filed for the declaration to the and protection of his mother, plaintiff No.2 is the owner in possession of the land to the extent of share of Bachan Kaur @ Gurbachan Kaur on the basis of a Will dated 25.03.2010. A further declaration has been f the estate of Bachan Kaur, deceased is nonest and inoperative qua him with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining contesting defendants from interfering in his possession or from alienating the suit land. Upon 5, has been filed by the defendants. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, Trial Court framed issues on 03.04.2012. The core question to be determined by the Trial Court is whether Will dated 25.03.2010, ecuted by Bachan Kaur, deceased, is a legal and valid document and that as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration, as prayed for. Plaintiff examined five witnesses and closed his evidence. is reproduced Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 6. and tendered some documents while closing their evidence on 16.11.2015. Proceedings were deferred for leading rebuttal evidence, when application Annexure P adducing additional evidence and after contest, it has been dismissed, vide order impugned herein. 7. this Court in 4076-2016 (O&M) PW5 cross examined thereafter plaintiff closed his evidence in affirmative. To come up on 3.7.2015 for entire evidence of defendant. PF/DM list of witnesses be filed within 7 days. Defendants closed their ocular evidence on 21.10.2015 and tendered some documents while closing their evidence on 16.11.2015. Proceedings were deferred for leading rebuttal evidence, when application Annexure P-7, has been filed by pl adducing additional evidence and after contest, it has been dismissed, vide order impugned herein. Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh’s case (supra) “21. In our opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 1 Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the -5- PW5 cross examined thereafter plaintiff closed his evidence in affirmative. To come up on 3.7.2015 for entire evidence of defendant. PF/DM list of witnesses be (Aman Sharma) CJ(JD)/18.5.2015” Defendants closed their ocular evidence on 21.10.2015 and tendered some documents while closing their evidence on 16.11.2015. Proceedings were deferred for leading rebuttal evidence, 7, has been filed by plaintiff No.1 for adducing additional evidence and after contest, it has been dismissed, Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of Surjit Singh’s case (supra), has observed as under:- opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". rally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the PW5 cross examined thereafter plaintiff closed his evidence in affirmative. To come up on 3.7.2015 for entire evidence of defendant. PF/DM list of witnesses be Defendants closed their ocular evidence on 21.10.2015 and tendered some documents while closing their evidence on 16.11.2015. Proceedings were deferred for leading rebuttal evidence, aintiff No.1 for adducing additional evidence and after contest, it has been dismissed, Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of opinion, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". rally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 4076-2016 (O&M) Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of (supra). It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that "the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only," the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashmir Kaur (supra) lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs c observations of the Division Bench in Kaur's case (supra). The Division Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been clear has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Punjab Steel Corporation (supra) plaintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned Single Judge run contrary to th -6- Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur . It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that "the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only," the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead idence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge Kashmir Kaur (supra) that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the observations of the Division Bench in Mrs. Jaswant The Division Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been clearly held that such a reservation has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Punjab Steel Corporation (supra). In that case the aintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned Single Judge run contrary to the law laid down by the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by Smt. Jaswant Kaur . It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that "the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only," the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead idence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our ontrary to the Jaswant The Division Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in ly held that such a reservation has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of . In that case the aintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned e law laid down by the Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 8. others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 794has rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Division Bench in and others, 2015 (1) PLR 230 to lead his entire evidence on all the issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer the evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards th defendant, he shall have to reserve his right. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party begins 4076-2016 (O&M) Division Bench in the case of (supra). No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the same time, it has been held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of (supra) and R.N. Mittal, J. in (supra). The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for decision of the same on merits.” Another Division Bench of this Court in others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) has held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Division Bench in Avtar Singh and another Vers and others, 2015 (1) PLR 230has held that the plaintiff has the option to lead his entire evidence on all the issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer the evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards the issues the onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his right. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party begins -7- Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur . No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the en held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of Mrs. Jaswant Kaur and R.N. Mittal, J. in National Fertilizers Ltd. . The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for decision of the same on merits.” Another Division Bench of this Court in Jagdev Singh and others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Avtar Singh and another Versus Baldev Singh held that the plaintiff has the option to lead his entire evidence on all the issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer the evidence that is to be led by the e issues the onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his right. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party begins its Smt. Jaswant Kaur . No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the en held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of r National Fertilizers Ltd. . The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for Singh and others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another us Baldev Singh held that the plaintiff has the option to lead his entire evidence on all the issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer the evidence that is to be led by the e issues the onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his right. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his its Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by three different Division Benches. 9. that the plaintiff’s closed their evidence in affirmative on 18.05.2015. They did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by them at any time before th their evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, do not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error while declining the application vide order Annexure P 10. observed that inherent power under Section 151 CPC can be exercised to deal with a situation not provided for in CPC, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. While dealing with application under Section 151 additional evidence and recalling of witnesses after the parties have concluded their evidence, Court should ensure that it is not dilatory tactic and that non valid reasons. Peru explanation given by the plaintiffs was that they could not lay their hands on the original power of Attorney. The explanation is 4076-2016 (O&M) evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by three different Division Benches. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the plaintiff’s closed their evidence in affirmative on 18.05.2015. They did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by them at any time before th their evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, do not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error while declining the application vide order Annexure P In K.K.Velusamy’s case (supra), Sup observed that inherent power under Section 151 CPC can be exercised to deal with a situation not provided for in CPC, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. While dealing with application under Section 151 additional evidence and recalling of witnesses after the parties have concluded their evidence, Court should ensure that it is not dilatory tactic and that non-production of additional evidence earlier was for valid reasons. Perusal of application, Annexure P explanation given by the plaintiffs was that they could not lay their hands on the original power of Attorney. The explanation is -8- evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the plaintiff’s closed their evidence in affirmative on 18.05.2015. They did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by them at any time before the defendants led their evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, do not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error while declining the application vide order Annexure P-9. case (supra), Supreme Court observed that inherent power under Section 151 CPC can be exercised to deal with a situation not provided for in CPC, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. While dealing with application under Section 151 CPC, seeking production of additional evidence and recalling of witnesses after the parties have concluded their evidence, Court should ensure that it is not dilatory production of additional evidence earlier was for sal of application, Annexure P-7, shows that only explanation given by the plaintiffs was that they could not lay their hands on the original power of Attorney. The explanation is evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the plaintiff’s closed their evidence in affirmative on 18.05.2015. They did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a e defendants led their evidence. The plaintiffs therefore, do not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error reme Court observed that inherent power under Section 151 CPC can be exercised to deal with a situation not provided for in CPC, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of Court. While dealing CPC, seeking production of additional evidence and recalling of witnesses after the parties have concluded their evidence, Court should ensure that it is not dilatory production of additional evidence earlier was for 7, shows that only explanation given by the plaintiffs was that they could not lay their hands on the original power of Attorney. The explanation is Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment CR-4076 unsatisfactory as the power of Attorney is admittedly a registered document. by the Trial Court. The judgments by co come to the aid of the plaintiffs. the order passed by the Trial Court. Petition being devo dismissed with no order as to costs. 11. remained pending for one and a half decade. Proceedings are at an advanced stage, therefore, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude of two months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 25.03.2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable 4076-2016 (O&M) unsatisfactory as the power of Attorney is admittedly a registered document. The application lacks bona fide has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The judgments by co come to the aid of the plaintiffs. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. Petition being devo dismissed with no order as to costs. Civil suit was instituted in the year 2010 and has remained pending for one and a half decade. Proceedings are at an advanced stage, therefore, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude them as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 25.03.2025 pooja saini Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No -9- unsatisfactory as the power of Attorney is admittedly a registered The application lacks bona fide has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. The judgments by co-ordinate benches cannot There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court. Petition being devoid of merits, is Civil suit was instituted in the year 2010 and has remained pending for one and a half decade. Proceedings are at an advanced stage, therefore, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to them as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No unsatisfactory as the power of Attorney is admittedly a registered The application lacks bona fide has been rightly rejected ordinate benches cannot There is no irregularity or illegality in id of merits, is Civil suit was instituted in the year 2010 and has remained pending for one and a half decade. Proceedings are at an advanced stage, therefore, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to them as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period Pooja Saini 2025.04.07 10:54 I attest the integrity and accuracy of this order/judgment