IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 120(2) Mannu Gupta Priyanka CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. India is filed seeking whereby application for leading dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby application moved by the respondent for putting objection to the intended documentary evidence has already been dismissed, thus, the impugned o illegalities in the eyes of law. 2. respondent had previously moved an application dated 18.2.2025, raising objections to the intended petitioner. The application of the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2025 (Annexure P3). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Mannu Gupta Vs. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking setting aside of order dated 18.0 whereby application for leading rebuttal evidence in reference to order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby application moved by the respondent for putting objection to the intended documentary evidence has already been dismissed, thus, the impugned o illegalities in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent had previously moved an application dated 18.2.2025, raising objections to the intended documentary evidence titioner. The application of the respondent was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2025 (Annexure P3). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2703-2025(O&M) Date of decision: 05.05.2025 ...Petitioner(s) ...Respondent(s) JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate under Article 227 of the Constitution of setting aside of order dated 18.04.2025 (Annexure P6) rebuttal evidence in reference to order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby application moved by the respondent for putting objection to the intended documentary evidence has already been dismissed, thus, the impugned order suffers from patent Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent had previously moved an application dated 18.2.2025, raising documentary evidence in rebuttal by the titioner. The application of the respondent was dismissed vide order 5 under Article 227 of the Constitution of ) rebuttal evidence in reference to order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure P3) whereby application moved by the respondent for putting objection to the intended documentary evidence rder suffers from patent the respondent had previously moved an application dated 18.2.2025, raising in rebuttal by the titioner. The application of the respondent was dismissed vide order SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P said application, led between the parties in the proceedings under certified copies thereof, between the respondent and another woman. reply dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P5), to the above said application of the petitioner. However, vide the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure P6), the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed. 4. the rebuttal evidence sought to be brought on record is rebuttal to the issues onus certified copy of the evidence between the parties in the section 125 proceedings are within the knowledge of the respondent; and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to her. came to know of the conversation transcript of the respondent with another woman adjudication of the matter. be set aside. 5. 6. perused the case f Then the petitioner had filed the present application .03.2025 (Annexure P4) for tendering evidence in rebuttal. said application, the petitioner had sought to tender on record the evidence between the parties in the proceedings under certified copies thereof, as well as the CD and the telephonic conversation between the respondent and another woman. reply dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P5), to the above said application of the However, vide the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure P6), the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the rebuttal evidence sought to be brought on record is rebuttal to the of which is upon the respondent. It is submitted that the certified copy of the evidence between the parties in the section 125 eedings are within the knowledge of the respondent; and therefore, no prejudice will be caused to her. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the conversation transcript of the respondent with another woman later on, and these facts adjudication of the matter. It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order be set aside. No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the perused the case file in great detail. Page 2 of 5 petitioner had filed the present application for tendering evidence in rebuttal. Vide the the petitioner had sought to tender on record the evidence between the parties in the proceedings under Section 125 CRPC, the as well as the CD and the telephonic conversation between the respondent and another woman. The respondent had filed reply dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P5), to the above said application of the However, vide the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure P6), the said application of the petitioner has been dismissed. learned counsel for the petitioner that the rebuttal evidence sought to be brought on record is rebuttal to the of which is upon the respondent. It is submitted that the certified copy of the evidence between the parties in the section 125 eedings are within the knowledge of the respondent; and therefore, no It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the conversation transcript of the respondent with , and these facts are necessary for the proper It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order No other argument is made on behalf of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and 5 petitioner had filed the present application Vide the the petitioner had sought to tender on record the evidence the as well as the CD and the telephonic conversation ondent had filed reply dated 28.3.2025 (Annexure P5), to the above said application of the However, vide the impugned order dated 18.4.2025 (Annexure learned counsel for the petitioner that the rebuttal evidence sought to be brought on record is rebuttal to the of which is upon the respondent. It is submitted that the certified copy of the evidence between the parties in the section 125 eedings are within the knowledge of the respondent; and therefore, no It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know of the conversation transcript of the respondent with are necessary for the proper It is accordingly prayed that the impugned order and SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7. married to the respondent on 21.01.2015 wedlock on 09.01.2017 wife. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 had previously also filed an application dated to lead additional evidence; which was dismissed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 18.3.2025. challenged by the petitioner before this which has been After dismissal of application for additional evidence by order dated 18.3.2025, the petitioner seeking to lead the rebuttal evidence stage 8. in the knowledge of petitioner at time of leading affirmative evidence however, he has failed to produce the same. never put above cross-examination. to lead evidence in rebuttal c burden of proof lay upon respondent Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married to the respondent on 21.01.2015. One son was born out of their wedlock on 09.01.2017, who is in the care and custody of the The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 had previously also filed an application dated to lead additional evidence; which was dismissed by the learned Family Court vide order dated 18.3.2025. The sa challenged by the petitioner before this C which has been dismissed by this Court, vide order of even date After dismissal of application for additional evidence by order dated 18.3.2025, the petitioner has filed the present application dated 24.3.2025 seeking to lead the very same oral as well as evidence stage. It is undisputed that the in the knowledge of petitioner at time of leading affirmative evidence however, he has failed to produce the same. ver put above-said proposed evidence to respondent at the time of her examination. Even further, as per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal can be granted only qua those issues where burden of proof lay upon respondent, and where petitioner ha rief facts of the case are that the petitioner was . One son was born out of their , who is in the care and custody of the respondent- The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the respondent had filed reply dated 30.10.2020 (Annexure P2). The petitioner had previously also filed an application dated 3.3.2025, seeking permission to lead additional evidence; which was dismissed by the learned Family The said order dated 18.3.2025 was Court by way of CR-2711-2025; dismissed by this Court, vide order of even date/5.5.2025. After dismissal of application for additional evidence by order dated the present application dated 24.3.2025 oral as well as documentary evidence at It is undisputed that the proposed evidence was already in the knowledge of petitioner at time of leading affirmative evidence however, he has failed to produce the same. Moreover, the petitioner has said proposed evidence to respondent at the time of her per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity be granted only qua those issues where nd where petitioner has reserved 5 rief facts of the case are that the petitioner was . One son was born out of their - The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of divorce (Annexure P1) in 2019 to which the The petitioner 3.3.2025, seeking permission to lead additional evidence; which was dismissed by the learned Family was 2025; . After dismissal of application for additional evidence by order dated the present application dated 24.3.2025 at proposed evidence was already in the knowledge of petitioner at time of leading affirmative evidence petitioner has said proposed evidence to respondent at the time of her per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity be granted only qua those issues where reserved SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document his right of rebuttal. has not reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal. leading evidence in rebuttal stands extinguished, and to lead affirmative evidence at rebuttal stage. 9. forfeited and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead rebuttal his right of rebuttal. It is not denied that in the present case the has not reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal. leading evidence in rebuttal stands extinguished, and to lead affirmative evidence at rebuttal stage. Relevant findings of learned Family Court are as under: “5. The petitioner wants to lead above said oral as well as documentary evidence at rebuttal evidence stage. The proposed evidence was already in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading affirmative evidence, however, the petitioner has failed to produce the same. Moreover, the petitioner had never put above said proposed evidence to the respondent at the time of her cross 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal could be granted only qua those issues, where the burden of proof lay upon the respondent and where the petitioner had reserved his right of re which his right of leading evidence in rebuttal would stand extinguished his right as held in Hardial Singh Vs Davinder Singh(PH): Law Finder Doc Id#1662913, CR 2016 decided on 06.01.2020. Reliance is placed on Joga Singh Vs Jarnail Singh & others (PH), CR 06.03.2024, wherein it was held that once the plaintiff did not reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing his affirmative evidence, his right to claim said benefit stan forfeited and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead rebuttal evidence. Reliance is placed on Chand & others, CR no.1233 of 2017 (0&M)(PH), decided on 25.04.2022, wherein it was held that Order 18 Rule 3 would not It is not denied that in the present case the petitioner has not reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Thus, his right of leading evidence in rebuttal stands extinguished, and he cannot be allowed to lead affirmative evidence at rebuttal stage. learned Family Court are as under:- s to lead above said oral as well as documentary evidence at rebuttal evidence stage. The idence was already in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading affirmative evidence, however, the petitioner has failed to produce the same. Moreover, the petitioner had never put above said proposed evidence to the her cross-examination. As per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal could be granted only qua those issues, where the burden of proof lay upon the respondent and where the petitioner had reserved his right of rebuttal in the absence of which his right of leading evidence in rebuttal would extinguished his right as held in Hardial Singh Vs Davinder Singh(PH): Law Finder Doc Id#1662913, CR-5466 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2020. Reliance is placed on Joga Singh Vs Jarnail Singh & others (PH), CR-5088 of 2019 decided on held that once the plaintiff did not reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing right to claim said benefit stands forfeited and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead rebuttal on Munshi Ram & others Vs Sushil Chand & others, CR no.1233 of 2017 (0&M)(PH), decided on 25.04.2022, wherein it was held that Order 18 Rule 3 would not 5 petitioner his right of he cannot be allowed s to lead above said oral as well as documentary evidence at rebuttal evidence stage. The idence was already in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of leading affirmative evidence, however, the petitioner has failed to produce the same. Moreover, the petitioner had never put above said proposed evidence to the examination. As per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal could be granted only qua those issues, where the burden of proof lay upon the respondent and where the buttal in the absence of which his right of leading evidence in rebuttal would extinguished his right as held in Hardial Singh Vs 5466 of 2016 decided on 06.01.2020. Reliance is placed on Joga Singh 5088 of 2019 decided on held that once the plaintiff did not reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing ds forfeited and the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead rebuttal Munshi Ram & others Vs Sushil Chand & others, CR no.1233 of 2017 (0&M)(PH), decided on 25.04.2022, wherein it was held that Order 18 Rule 3 would not SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10. taken by the learned Family Court. The present petition accordingly stands dismissed. 11. 05.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: give a right to plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, in which onus of proof is on plaintiff. I am in complete agreement with the above said view taken by the learned Family Court. The present petition accordingly stands Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No give a right to plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, in intiff.” I am in complete agreement with the above said view taken by the learned Family Court. The present petition accordingly stands Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 give a right to plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, in I am in complete agreement with the above said view taken by the learned Family Court. The present petition accordingly stands SUNENA 2025.05.07 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document