Punjab and Haryana High Court – Plaintiff Cannot Lead Rebuttal Evidence Without Reserving Right Under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC
Case Name: Hardial Singh v. Davinder Singh
Citation: CR No. 5466 of 2016
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2020
Bench: Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed the tenant-defendant’s revision petition, holding that a plaintiff who fails to reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC forfeits such right. Since the plaintiff had closed his evidence without reserving the right, the order permitting him to adduce handwriting expert evidence in rebuttal was unsustainable.
Summary: In a suit regarding an alleged agreement to sell dated 04.11.2011, the defendant (petitioner) claimed the document was fraudulent and a result of impersonation. A specific issue (Issue No. 9) was framed on fraud and impersonation, the burden of proving which lay on the defendant. The defendant examined a handwriting and fingerprint expert (DW2), who opined in his favour.
Thereafter, the plaintiff sought permission to lead rebuttal evidence by examining his own expert. The trial Court allowed the application, permitting rebuttal.
The defendant challenged this order, contending that under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, rebuttal evidence can only be led if the plaintiff had reserved such a right at the stage of closing his affirmative evidence, which was not done here. Reliance was placed on Avtar Singh v. Baldev Singh, 2015(1) Civil Court Cases 728, and other precedents.
The plaintiff argued that rebuttal was necessary to counter the expert evidence of the defendant and could not have been anticipated earlier.
The High Court held that Division Bench precedent in Surjit Singh v. Devinder Singh (AIR 1983 P&H 210) and Avtar Singh v. Baldev Singh clearly established that the plaintiff must either lead all evidence in one go or reserve his right to rebut issues on which the burden lies upon the defendant. Since the plaintiff had failed to do so, his right stood forfeited. The trial Court’s order allowing rebuttal was thus contrary to law.
Decision: The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the trial Court’s order dated 02.08.2016, and disallowed the plaintiff from leading rebuttal evidence.