Plaintiff Cannot Lead Additional Expert Evidence To Prove Document Signatures If Denial Was Already Pleaded In Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the plaintiff himself," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a plaintiff who fails to lead expert evidence during the affirmative stage of a trial cannot be permitted to do so at the stage of rebuttal or as additional evidence if the signatures on the document were already denied in the written statement.

A bench of Justice Raj Mohan Singh observed that allowing such an application would amount to permitting a party to fill a lacuna in their case after they had already exhausted numerous opportunities to lead evidence.

The court dismissed a revision petition filed by the plaintiff against an order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, which had declined the request to examine a handwriting expert. The dispute arose from a suit for separate possession and permanent injunction based on an agreement dated November 12, 2001. The defendant had specifically denied the signatures of his father on the agreement in the written statement filed at the commencement of the litigation.

The primary question before the court was whether a plaintiff is entitled to lead expert evidence by way of additional evidence or rebuttal to prove the authenticity of a document when the defendant had already denied the execution of said document in the pleadings. The court was also called upon to determine if the inherent powers of the court could be exercised to allow additional evidence when the facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiff from the very beginning of the trial.

Court Rejects Attempt To Lead Evidence In Rebuttal On Issues Where Onus Lies On Plaintiff

The High Court observed that since the defendant had specifically denied the signatures in the written statement, the burden of proof (onus) lay squarely on the plaintiff to prove the authenticity of the agreement. The bench noted that the plaintiff had already availed 19 opportunities over eight years to lead evidence in the affirmative but chose not to examine a handwriting expert at that stage.

Onus Of Proof Remains With The Plaintiff

The court emphasized that the plaintiff is required to lead all necessary evidence in the affirmative to prove issues for which the onus is on him. It was held that once the plaintiff concludes affirmative evidence, they cannot resort to rebuttal or additional evidence to strengthen their case on the same issues, especially when the grounds for doing so were known from the outset.

"The plaintiff was required to lead expert evidence in his affirmative evidence in order to give more authenticity to his evidence. The onus of the issue was on the plaintiff himself and the plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal or by way of additional evidence in respect of an issue, the onus of which was on the plaintiff himself."

Additional Evidence Cannot Be Used To Fill Lacunae In The Case

Justice Raj Mohan Singh noted that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the denial of signatures from the very beginning of the suit. By failing to lead expert evidence during the affirmative stage, the plaintiff cannot later seek to "fill the lacuna" by invoking the court's power to allow additional evidence. The court held that such a practice would undermine the procedural discipline of a civil trial.

Court Explains Limitations Of Order 18 Rule 17A CPC

The bench observed that resorting to an application for additional evidence (under the principles of the erstwhile Order 18 Rule 17A CPC) is not permissible if it has the effect of negating a prior refusal of rebuttal evidence. The court clarified that parties must satisfy the court that the evidence was not within their knowledge despite due diligence, which was not the case here as the denial was part of the judicial record from the start.

"Parties cannot be allowed to fill lacuna by adducing additional evidence without satisfying the Court that such an evidence is required for effective adjudication of the case."

Distinction Drawn Between Pleaded Denials And Unexpected Defence Testimonies

The petitioner had relied on the precedent in Pawan Kumar vs. Vijay Kumar, where a handwriting expert was allowed at the rebuttal stage. However, the High Court distinguished that case, noting that in Pawan Kumar, an attesting witness had appeared as a defense witness and unexpectedly denied his signature. In the present case, the denial was not a surprise but was explicitly stated in the defendant's written statement.

Strict Adherence To Precedents On Affirmative Evidence

Relying on the Division Bench ruling in Surjit Singh and others vs. Jagtar Singh and others and subsequent decisions in Jagdev Singh vs. Darshan Singh and Avtar Singh vs. Baldev Singh, the court reaffirmed that the plaintiff is not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal regarding an issue where the onus was on them. The bench concluded that no indulgence could be granted as the plaintiff had failed to discharge their primary burden during the appropriate stage of the trial.

The High Court concluded that the trial court's order declining the examination of a handwriting expert was legally sound. Since the suit was nearly a decade old and the plaintiff had already exhausted numerous opportunities, the court found no merit in the revision petition. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the principle that additional evidence is not a tool to rectify strategic omissions in a party's affirmative evidence.

Date of Decision: 16 August 2017