GOPAL SINGH Vs. SHOBHIRAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition filed under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.9.13 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (JD)-cum-ACJM, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 78/10 (104/07), whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner in leading the evidence in rebuttal under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC.

(2.) It has been sought to be submitted by Mr. Ajay Goyal on behalf of Mr. Manoj Avasthi for the petitioner that the respondents-defendants had examined one witness who was not listed in the list of witnesses and, therefore, to rebut the evidence of the said witness, the petitioner wanted to examine the another witness. He has submitted that the petitioner should have been given one opportunity to lead the evidence in rebuttal.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and to the impugned order, as well as the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC, it appears that the court had not reserved the right of the petitioner-plaintiff to lead any evidence in rebuttal. Merely because some witness has been examined by the defendants, that would not create any right to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal. From the application also it appears that the petitioner has not stated as to whom he wanted to examine and for what purpose. The learned counsel having failed to point out any circumstance as contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC, the court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court.