JUDGMENT -The non-applicant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 13,000 against the defendant towards the arrears of rent. It is not necessary to make a detailed reference to the allegations made in the plaint for deciding the limited controversy raised in this Civil Revision Application. The defendant contested this claim and contended that the amount already paid by him was not towards the rent but was towards initial deposit for purchase of a machine. He denied the claim made by the plaintiff and contended that on the other hand he is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs. 7,000 in view of the subsequent contract between the parties. Thus the defendant made a counterclaim of Rs. 7805, which included interest payable on the amount of Rs. 7,000. The defendant also paid necessary court-fee. 2. On the basis of the pleas incorporated in the plaint as well as the written-statement, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur framed in all 8 issues. From the bare reading of these issues it is quite obvious that so far as issues Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are concerned, which are regarding the counter claim made by the defendant, the burden was placed on the defendant to prove his case and so far as other issues are concerned, the burden was upon the plaintiff. At the trial, the plaintiff examined one witness and then filed a pursis Ex. 56 dated 15th March 1975 in the following terms:: "The plaintiff does not want to examine any other witness in support of his case except the witnesses in rebuttal if necessary." 3. Thereafter the defendant entered into the witness-box and has also examined one Ramnarayan in support of his case as well as for rebutting the claim made by the plaintiff. After the defendant closed his case, the plaintiff made a request to the Court to record evidence of its witnesses in rebuttal of the evidence adduced by the defendant in support of his counter claim. This request made by the plaintiff was objected by the defendant vide his written objection dated 2nd May 1975 Ex. 66. 4; After hearing arguments the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur vide his order dated 13tb June 1975 overruled the objection raised by the defendant. According to the learned Judge, the plaintiff had already filed a pursis at Ex. This request made by the plaintiff was objected by the defendant vide his written objection dated 2nd May 1975 Ex. 66. 4; After hearing arguments the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur vide his order dated 13tb June 1975 overruled the objection raised by the defendant. According to the learned Judge, the plaintiff had already filed a pursis at Ex. 56 reserving his right to examine witnesses in rebuttal, if necessary. Thus the learned Judge found that the option contemplated by Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, was already exercised by the plaintiff and, therefore, he was entitled to examine the witnesses in rebuttal. Thus the objection filed by the defendant was rejected. It is this order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, dated 13th June 1975, which is challenged before me. S. The plaintiff has not chosen to put in appearance before this Court in spite of proper service. Therefore I had not the advantage of hearing any argument on behalf of the plaintiff. 6. Shti Rajkarne, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, contended before me that in the present case the option should have been exercised by the plaintiff at the initial stage itself, that is, before beginning of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Such an option cannot be exercised at a later stage after the plaintiff has chosen to examine one witness in support of its claim. Mr. Rajkarne further contended that apart from the exercise of the option in the present case the plaintiff has already adduced its evidence in rebuttal by examining Ravishankar (P. W. 1), who in his deposition has denied the counter claim made by the defendant. Therefore according to the learned counsel, there was 'no occasion for the plaintiff to exercise the option and therefore, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division is illegal. 7. So far as the first point relating to the exercise of the option is concerned. Shri Rajkarne is strongly relying upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Narayan v. Baburam1. Wherein it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that Order 18 rule 3. Code of Civil Procedure gives the party beginning a right to elect one out of the two courses open to him and to proceed according to that elected course. Wherein it was held by the Madhya Pradesh High Court that Order 18 rule 3. Code of Civil Procedure gives the party beginning a right to elect one out of the two courses open to him and to proceed according to that elected course. A man has to elect which way he has to go only when he is standing at the crossroad. So that is the point at which he has to elect. The upshot of this discussion is that the stage of election is preceded by the leading of evidence the natural consequence whereof is that the intimation of that election to the Court should also be at that stage, otherwise there is no meaning in it. The object behind intimation is that the other party must know it, so that he may have a fair opportunity to plan his evidence accordingly and cross-examination of opposite party's witnesses is one in that planning. The basic object of the rules of procedure is that each party must have a fair opportunity of meeting it. If the intimation is to be given after the closure of the evidence of the party beginning, the very fore-observed purpose of the intimation would be frustrated and the other party is likely to be prejudiced." In this view of the matter the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court relying upon an unreported decision of the same High Court (Civil Revision No. 129 of 1968 decided on 23-10-1970 Madhya Pradesh) ultimately came to the conclusion that "Such an election to reserve is when he begins". On the basis of this decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court it is vehemently contended by Shri Rajkarne that it was not open for the plaintiff to give an option at a later stage after examining Ravishankar (P. W. 1) in support of its claim. It is not possible for me to accept this proposition. 8. Ultimately the rules of procedure are intended to be handmaid of the administration of justice. As to when the option should be given is not laid down in Order 18, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In my opinion, it is not possible to lay down a general proposition in this behalf nor it is advisable to do so. To some extent it must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. In my opinion, it is not possible to lay down a general proposition in this behalf nor it is advisable to do so. To some extent it must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. The learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Laxmi Narayan v. Baburam (cit. supra) had made a reference to the decisions of Mysore. Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh High Courts, namely, S. Chandra Keerti v. Abdul Gaffar2, Inderjeet Singh v. Maharaj Raghunath Singh3 and Illapu Nookalamma v. Illapu Simchachallam4, which have takIen a different view. However it appears from the tenor of the judgment in Laxmi Narayan's case that the learned single Judge preferred to follow the unreported decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Civil Revision No. 129 of 1968 decided on 23-10-1970) and has not expressed any opinion about the view taken by Mysore, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. 10. In Illapu Nookalamma v. Illapu Simchachalam (cit. supra) the Aandhra Pradesh High Court after making a reference to the decisions of Saurashtra, Vindh Pradesh and Patna High Courts in Motibhai Prabhubhai v. Umedchand5, Nanhey Raja Sahab v. Kedar Nath6 and Ramchandra Singh v. Bibi Asghari7, ultimately came to the conclusion that- "The plaintiff is entitled to express his reservation to adduce evidence by way of rebuttal after the completion of the evidence on the side of the plaintiff and before the commencement of the evidence for the defendant under Order 18, Rule 3, in respect of issues of which onus lies on the defendant. The option given to the party, contemplated under Order 18, Rule 3, is to be exercised only at or before the time when the other party that has got right to lead evidence, begins, and not afterwards." In this context in paragraph 6 of the judgment the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed as under: "A close reading of the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code makes it clear that the plaintiff is entitled to produce her evidence on those issues (issues Nos. 8 and 9) after the other party has produced all his evidence. That stage would come only when the defendant would complete the evidence of his witnesses. 8 and 9) after the other party has produced all his evidence. That stage would come only when the defendant would complete the evidence of his witnesses. The question of adducing evidence by way of rebuttal would arise only after the evidence for the defendant is produced before the Court on the issue where the burden is admittedly on the defendant. The option given to the party contemplated under Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code will have to be exercised only at or before the time when the other party that has got the fight to lead evidence on issues Nos. 8 and 9 actually, begins, and not after· wards. Admittedly, the defendant has no right to adduce evidence on issues where the burden lies, on him, before the completion of the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses on the issues where the burden lies on the plaintiff. Hence, at that stage, the plaintiff can certainly claim the reservation contemplated under Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code and request the Court that that right would be exercised by the plaintiff after the completion of the evidence of the defendant's witnesses, and a memo, in fact, has been filed before the defendant, who has a right to lead evidence on those issues Nos. 8 and 9, has actually commenced. Hence, on a close and careful reading of the provisions of Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff must be held to be within her limits in filing the memo, after the close of her evidence and before the commencement of the defendant's evidence, exercising the option contemplated in Order 18, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code." Similar view was expressed by Rajasthan High Court in Inderjeet Singh v. Maharaj Raghunath Singh (cit. supra). The Rajasthan High Court held that Order 18. Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, does not prescribe the stage at which the Court should be informed about exercise of the option there-under. It is sufficient if the party leading evidence does so (provided it has not led any evidence on the issues covered by the option before the other patty begins its evidence, that it is reserving its right to adduce evidence in rebuttal on the other issues. Obviously this can be done only after it has actually not led any evidence on those issues. Obviously this can be done only after it has actually not led any evidence on those issues. This decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court was approved and followed by Mysore High Court in S. Chandra Keerti v. Abdul Gaffar (cit. supra). Somewhat similar view was expressed by Orissa High Court in Arynya Kumar Panda v. Chintamani Pandas. 11. If various rules of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure are read together, it is quite clear that from the provisions of Order 18, rule 3, that where the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one of the parties, it is open to the party leading evidence, if chooses, to reserve his evidence by way of rebuttal to the evidence to be produced by the other party. In the case before me it is the plaintiff who bad made a claim for arrears of rent and has therefore, filed the suit. Therefore, the burden to prove the claim made by the plaintiff is upon the plaintiff itself. It is no doubt true that the option contemplated by Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, could be waived by the plaintiff and it could lead its own evidence even wit bout exercising such an option. The law does not prescribe any particular stage at which the option is to be exercised. In this case such an option was exercised be fore the defendant began his evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that it was not open to the plaintiff to exercise such an option after it has examined a witness in support of its claim. In the present case it could be said that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, as the option was given by the plaintiff of reserving its right to adduce evidence in rebuttal even before the other party had began his evidence. Sufficient notice was given to the defendant that the plaintiff intends or reserves its right to adduce evidence in rebuttal. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the interpretation put forward by the learned Judge upon the provisions of Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, so far as the present case is concerned is any way erroneous. 12. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the interpretation put forward by the learned Judge upon the provisions of Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, so far as the present case is concerned is any way erroneous. 12. So far as the second contention raised by Shri Rajkarne is concerned, namely, that the plaintiff has already chosen to record Its evidence in rebuttal also and, therefore, it was not open for it to exercise an option. It is not possible to accept this contei1tlOn either because it cannot be said in the present case that the plaintiff had already adduced evidence even in rebuttal. As the initial burden was upon the plaintiff to prove its own claim, it has examined one witness who bas generally denied the claim made by the defendant in the counter claim. This does not amount to adducing the evidence covered by other issues, namely, relating to which the option contemplated under Order 18, rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, was permitted to be exercised. After the plaintiff has exercised such an option the defendant has adduced his evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff's claim as well as in support of his counter claim. The plaintiff was not aware as to what evidence the defendant was going to adduce to prove his counter claim. In these circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the plaintiff had already adduced evidence even regarding the issues covered by the option and, therefore, was not entitled to lead further evidence in rebuttal. 13. Even otherwise having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and having regard to the fact that ultimately the rules of procedure are the handmaid of the administration of justice, in my opinion this is not a fit case wherein any interference is called for in the exercise of the revision at jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 14. In the result, therefore, the revision application fails and is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. Revision application dismissed.