(1.) Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 22.1.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jagatsinghpur in T.S.No.77 of 2002, the instant petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the said order, the learned trial court rejected the application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to adduce rebuttal evidence.
(2.) To appreciate the case, it is not necessary to delineate the entire facts of the case. Suffice to say that the petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction along with other consequential reliefs in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Jagatsinghpur, which is registered as T.S.No.77 of 2202. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement along with counter claim praying inter alia for partition of the suit schedule land. The plaintiff filed written statement of the counter claim. In course of hearing, he was examined and cross-examined as P.W.1. On 10.1.2008 an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 3 C.P.C. praying therein to permit him to adduce rebuttal evidence. The defendants have filed objection to the said petition. It is stated that after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the petition filed by him is not maintainable. The learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff could have filed petition before beginning of his evidence. So at this stage his option to adduce further evidence to reply the questions of the defendants is not maintainable. Such an option is available before beginning of the evidence of the plaintiff at least, in course of his evidence. But after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, he is not allowed to adduce evidence when the evidence of the defendants side has started. Having held so, the learned trial court rejected application.
(3.) Heard Mr.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Satpathy, learned counsel for the opposite parties.