(1.) THIS revision arises out of a suit for ejectment. The trial court framed several issues out of which the burden of proof of some lay on the plaintiff and some others in the defendant. To begin with, the plaintiff produced his evidence. He closed his evidence without expressly receiving his right to produce rebuttal evidence. Thereafter, the defendant led his evidence. At the conclusion of the defendants evidence, counsel for the plaintiff claimed to produce rebuttal evidence and the counsel for the defendant opposed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff had not expressly reserved his right to produce the rebuttal evidence at any previous stage of the proceedings. The trial court repelled the objection and granted the plaintiff permission to lead rebuttal evidence. Against this order, the defendant has come up in revision to this court.
(2.) FOR the petitioner it was contended that the plaintiffs claim to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal was barred as he had not expressly reserved such right either at the commencement or at the close of his evidence or even at any time thereafter before the defendant commenced to lead evidence. For this, he relied upon the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decision based thereon of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the rase of Illapu Meekalama Versus Illapu Simchacha -lam, (A.I.R. 1969 Andhra Pradesh, 82) Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: "Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party, and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence and the other party may then reply especially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning, but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case".
(3.) IT will be noticed that this rule contemplates a case where there are several issues the burden of proving some of which lies on one party and of some others on the other party. The rule provides that in such a case the party beginning shall have the option either to produce his evidence on all the issues or in respect of such issues only the burden whereof is on it and leave the rebuttal evidence in respect of the issues, thus whereof is on the other party, to be produced only after such party has produced his evidence. There is nothing in this rule to suggest that the option should be exercised in a particular form or at any particular stage. All that is necessary is that the party beginning should not have produced any evidence by way of rebuttal before the commencement of the evidence by the other party, Accordingly where the question arises whether the party beginning should be allowed to produce any evidence by way of rebuttal after the completion of his evidence by the other party, all that the court has to be satisfied about is whether or not the party beginning has adduced any evidence by way of rebuttal before the commencement of evidence by the other party. If the court finds that such rebuttal evidence has already been produced by the party beginning, then it should refuse permission to produce such evidence. On the other hand, if it finds that no such rebuttal evidence has come on record, it should permit the party beginning to produce such evidence. In the case of Illapu (Supra) the Andhra Pradesh high Court has held that in order to entitle the party beginning to produce the rebuttal evidence by the other party the beginning should have made an express reservation before the commencement of his evidence by the other party. On this interpretation we are asked to read Order 18 Rule 3 as it instead of words "reserve by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party the Legislature had enacted the words expressly reserve it by way of answer to the evidence adduced by the other party in this rule. This is not permissible. Moreover, rules are intended to help and not hinder the cause of justice. On this interpretation, many a litigants may not be able to produce rebuttal evidence on the technical ground that they have inadvertently omitted to intimate their option to the court before the commencement of the evidence by the other party. This is what the legislature could not have intended with all respects to the learned Judges, I am not, therefore, inclined to accept this interpretation.