PREMCHAND Vs. SUGANCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff assailing the legality and validity of the order dtd. 8/12/2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No.141/2014 (131/2006) whereby, an application filed by the respondent-defendant for confining plaintiff's rebuttal evidence to the extent of issue no.2, has been allowed as also the order dtd. 7/4/2022 whereby, his application seeking review of the order dtd. 8/12/2021, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration, learned trial Court was pleased to frame two issues including the issue no.2 pertaining to the suit being barred by limitation with its burden of proof upon the defendant. After closure of the plaintiff's evidence, his right of rebuttal evidence was kept reserved. After conclusion of defendant's evidence, the petitioner filed an affidavit in rebuttal evidence whereupon, an application came to be filed by the defendant stating therein that averments in the affidavit of the plaintiff travel beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence which is confined to issue no.2 only. The learned trial Court has, vide its order dtd. 8/12/2021, allowed the application filed by the defendant and has directed consideration of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff to the extent of issue no.2 only. A review petition filed thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dtd. 7/4/2022 and both the orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the order dtd. 20/12/2017 passed by the learned trial Court, canvassed that after completion of his evidence, his right of rebuttal evidence was kept reserved without any limitation and hence, the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the defendant vide its order dtd. 8/12/2021. He submitted that he wanted to exhibit certain documents in his rebuttal evidence which came into his notice after completion of his evidence and since, his right of rebuttal evidence was not confined to issue no.2 only, the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.