MAHESH Vs. HARISINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit challenging the order of the Trial Court, dated 20-2-2014, whereby the petitioner's application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. In brief, the petitioner after concluding his evidence had filed the application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. stating that on the issues framed on the counter claim filed by the respondent, the petitioner wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal after the evidence of the respondent, therefore, the petitioner had sought permission to conclude his evidence reserving the above right. The said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Trial Court by holding that the petitioner before commencement of the evidence should have reserved the right.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it was not necessary for the petitioner to file the application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. at the time of commencement of the evidence, but he had the option to file the application after concluding his evidence also and that the Trial Court has rejected the application on erroneous premises, whereas the counsel for the respondents submits that since the petitioner did not file the application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. at the time of commencement of his evidence, therefore, no such application is maintainable at the subsequent stage.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.