GAD SINGH Vs. PHOOL CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE genesis of controversy in this revision relates to interpretation of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. The defendants 1 to 3 (in short the defendants) have preferred this revision petition assailing the order dated November 13, 1996 of the learned Civil Judge, Niwai, whereby the application under order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed and the non -petitioners (for short the plaintiff) was permitted to lead his evidence in respect of rebuttal in respect of issue No. 2.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the trial court and the defendants filed written statement and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties as many as six issues were framed by the learned trial court. The plaintiff on April 19, 1993 closed his evidence and the case was posted for recording evidence of the defendants. The defendants closed their evidence on October 13, 1995 and the case was posted for final arguments. On November 10, 1995 the plaintiff filed an application under Order 18 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC and requested to adduce evidence in rebuttal on issue No. 2. The learned trial court vide its order dated November 13, 1995 allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of issue No. 2. Against this order that the defendants have filed this revision petition.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants and carefully perused the impugned order as well as the case law cited before me. This Court in Kalyan Dass v. Kishan Karan observed thus: 4. The trial court, was therefore not justified in allowing a further opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal in the interest of justice when it came to the definite conclusion that the plaintiff having failed to reserve his right to reading evidence in rebuttal was not entitled to any opportunity to do so. The plaintiff has no right left now to lead any further evidence in the case.