SANJEEV KUMAR BHARGAVA Vs. SNEHA LATA CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner assails the order dated 14/02/2018 whereby the application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC has been rejected by the learned trial court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed an eviction suit against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, nonuser and fixation of standard rent. The suit came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 08/08/1995. First Appeal was preferred by the defendant- petitioner as well as the plaintiff-respondent against the order of the trial court and the High Court vide order dated 15/03/2016 remanded the matter back holding that the entire rent determined provisionally was paid and the benefit of first default was not examined. The plaintiff-respondent submitted an application for amendment in the plaint which was rejected by the learned trial court against which writ petition came to be filed and the High Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 22/11/2016 granting liberty to the plaintiff-respondent for making amendments. After amendments, the plaintiff-respondent added one ground of personal and bonafide necessity and comparative hardship. The learned trial court proceeded with the matter after amendment and the plaintiff-respondent led his evidence. The same was ordered to be closed on 13/09/2017. The learned trial court had only allowed the plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence to the extent of default and the case was directed to be listed on 19/09/2017. An application came to be filed under Section 151 CPC by the defendant-petitioner mentioning therein that as evidence had been led by the plaintiff-respondent in relation to the additional grounds allowed to have been added by the High Court by way of an amendment, the defendant-petitioner be also allowed to lead evidence in defence thereto which was allowed by the trial court. On 19/12/2017, after the evidence of the defendant- petitioner was closed, the trial court granted a date for rebuttal evidence against which an application was moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC raising objections with regard to allowing evidence in rebuttal to the plaintiff-respondent which was rejected by order impugned dated 14/02/2018. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14/02/2018, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner.

(3.) The submission of the defendant-petitioner is that as the plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right of rebuttal at the time of closing his evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues for which he had already lead his evidence earlier. Learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner submits that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner and relies on the judgment passed in Jhunthi Devi Vs. Rasool Mithammed and ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.15709/2012, decided by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29/10/2012.