ILLAPU NOOKALAMMA Vs. ILLAPU SIMCHACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision petition gives rise to an interesting question of law relating to the interpretation of he scope and application of the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner filed O. S. No. 12 of 65 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam, for declaration of her title and for possession of the suit properties. which is resisted by the sole defendant on several grounds.

(3.) The Trial Court has framed several issues. The burden is on the plaintiff with regard to all the issues except issues Nos. 8 and 9 with regard to which the burden is on the defendant. After the completion of the examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, a memo by her Counsel reserving her right to adduce rebuttal evidence for the evidence that will be adduced by the defendant on issues Nos. 8 and 9, was filed on 24-11-66. The defendant resisted the claim of the plaintiff to reserve her right to adduce rebuttal evidence at that stage, as being belated, as she should have, according to him, made that claim before she began to let in evidence in the beginning. The lower Court, upholding the objection raised by the defendant, rejected the plaintiff's memo as unacceptable. Aggrieved by that order, the plaintiff preferred this revision petition.