BALBIRO Vs. MEJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'the Code') filed by the defendants-petitioners was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Patti vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by that order dated June 03, 1999, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision.

(2.) THE plaintiffs (now respondents) filed a suit for declaration that they are co-sharers of the suit land to the extent of 5/6th share with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land or dispossessing them forcibly except in due course of law or, in the alternative a suit for joint possession.

(3.) THE substantive question under consideration is whether the defendants can be allowed to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff produced in rebuttal. Both the documents i.e. sale deed dated 2.8.1991 as well as the will dated 1.8.1991 allegedly executed by Jarnail Singh in their favour, were not only in their knowledge but also in their possession. Now, at this stage, once the plaintiffs have already led evidence to rebut the case set up by the defendant, they cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal to the rebuttal evidence led by the plaintiffs. The prayer made by them in the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code reads as under :-