TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside order for plaintiff's handwriting expert in malicious prosecution case. Plaintiff denied rebuttal evidence burden.</h1> <h3>Upinder Singh Lamba Versus Raminder Singh</h3> The court set aside the order allowing the plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence in a case concerning recovery for alleged ... - Issues Involved:1. Permission to examine handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence.2. Entitlement to recovery for malicious prosecution.3. Burden of proof in malicious prosecution cases.4. Rights of parties to lead evidence in rebuttal.Summary:1. Permission to Examine Handwriting Expert in Rebuttal Evidence:The defendant challenged the order dated 9.8.2011, which allowed the plaintiff to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. The plaintiff's evidence was closed on 6.4.2010, and the defendant had led his evidence thereafter. The plaintiff then sought to examine a handwriting expert to compare signatures on an alleged agreement to sell. The court held that the plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal as the onus to prove entitlement to recover Rs. 5,00,000/- for alleged malicious prosecution was on the plaintiff initially. The court cited precedents including Surjit Singh vs Jagtar Singh, Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit, and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh to support this view.2. Entitlement to Recovery for Malicious Prosecution:The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- for alleged malicious prosecution by the defendant in FIR No. 118 dated 24.9.1994. The plaintiff was acquitted in the criminal case, which formed the basis for claiming compensation. The court noted that mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle one to compensation for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff must prove that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable or probable cause. The court referred to Major Gian Singh vs S. P. Batra and other cases to emphasize that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.3. Burden of Proof in Malicious Prosecution Cases:The court reiterated that in malicious prosecution cases, the burden of proving that the proceedings were initiated without reasonable and probable cause lies on the plaintiff. The court cited Major Gian Singh's case and other judgments, including Sukhwinder Singh vs Ravinder Singh and Pawan Kumar vs Hans Raj, to underline that the plaintiff must establish both malice and lack of reasonable cause.4. Rights of Parties to Lead Evidence in Rebuttal:The court discussed the rights of parties to lead evidence in rebuttal, stating that a party cannot lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the initial burden of proof is on that party. The court referred to Surjit Singh's case and other judgments like Ram Rattan vs Anand Pandit and Mohinder Singh vs Balbir Singh to support this position. The court concluded that the plaintiff's request to lead rebuttal evidence was not permissible as the burden of proof was on the plaintiff from the beginning.Conclusion:The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order that permitted the plaintiff to examine the handwriting expert in rebuttal evidence. The court emphasized that the plaintiff must prove the malicious prosecution claim independently and cannot rely on rebuttal evidence to discharge the initial burden of proof.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
