ORDER S.P. Srivastava, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants-applicants as well as the learned counsel representing the plaintiff-respondent. 2. Perused the record. 3. The suit giving rise to this revision had been filed by "Mandir Mahadeoji & Ram Janki, Village Pur, through Pujari Kailash Narayan" against four defendants which included the present applicant No. 1, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 1, the present applicant No. 2, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 2 and the present applicants Nos. 3 to 8, who are the heirs and legal representatives of Chhotelal, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 3. 4. The aforesaid suit had been filed seeking a decree of mandatory injunction for the demolition of the alleged unauthorised constructions and parnala in dispute. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff in respect of the land in dispute and to refrain from doing any act which may be adverse to its interest. 5. On 15-8-1989 Shri Atal Bihari Tank had put in appearance in the suit representing the defendants but in spite of being provided several opportunities, no written statement was filed and ultimately on 4-9-1995 a statement was made on behalf of the defendants that they did not intend to file any written statement. 6. After the plaintiff had led evidence in support of its case, an application on 24-10-1997 was filed by the defendants praying for permission to lead the evidence in rebuttal. The aforesaid application has been rejected vide the impugned order passed by the trial Court. 7. The defendants had moved another application on 22-11-1997 seeking recall of the order dated 18-10-1997 passed by the trial Court whereunder it had refused to permit the defendants to file the written statement. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court had also rejected the said application. 8. Feeling aggrieved, out of the four defendants, only the defendants No. 1, 2 and the heirs and legal representatives of original defendant No. 3 have now come up to this Court seeking redress praying for the setting aside of the impugned order. 9. The learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously urged that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in shutting out the applicants from leading evidence in rebuttal. 9. The learned counsel for the applicants has strenuously urged that the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in shutting out the applicants from leading evidence in rebuttal. The contention is that although in the absence of a written statement the applicants could not be entitled under the law to lead evidence in support of special pleas but otherwise they could not be prevented from leading evidence in rebuttal to negative or demolish the plaintiff's case. 10. In support of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the applicants has heavily relied upon the observations made by this Court in its decision in the case of Rajrani and Ors. v. Yadram Chaurasia and Ors., reported in 1979 JLJ 172 . 11. In the aforesaid decision, referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Anr., reported in AIR 1955 SC 425 , it had been pointed out that even in a situation where the defendant who had not filed a written statement, such defaulting defendant could join the proceedings at the stage he appeared and could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses and lead evidence in rebuttal in case the suit had not proceeded beyond the stage of framing of the issue, clarifying however that the only limitation in such a case would be that such a defendant would not be entitled to lead evidence or cross-examine on facts which may amount to special pleas which he could have raised had he filed a written statement as that would prejudice the plaintiffs as they had no notice of those facts. 12. Taking into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Sangram Singh (supra), there can be no manner of doubt that the defendant in such a situation, where he had not filed a written statement or had put in appearance at a later stage, has no right to set back the hands of the clock. He has to remain content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in. 13. In the present case, the defendants-applicants had chosen not to file a written statement. In such a situation, there could be no occasion for permitting them to lead any evidence in support of pleas which had never been set-up. He has to remain content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in. 13. In the present case, the defendants-applicants had chosen not to file a written statement. In such a situation, there could be no occasion for permitting them to lead any evidence in support of pleas which had never been set-up. Their right to demolish the plaintiffs case on the evidence and the materials brought on record by the plaintiff however could not be denied. 14. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has stated that the plaintiff has already closed its evidence and the defendant had been permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. 15. In the aforesaid situation, the question which has come up for consideration is as to whether the defendants-applicants could be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal and if so for which purpose ? 16. This Court in its decision in the case of Rajrani (supra) has already clarified that in a case where the written statement has not been filed and the issues have also not been framed, the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses only on such facts which may not amount to special pleas which could have been raised had a written statement been filed but such a defendant could lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of the matters which fell beyond the purview of any special pleas but had the effect of demolishing the plaintiff's case. Thus, a very limited type of evidence is permissible to be led in rebuttal. The observation of the trial Court that no evidence in rebuttal could be led at all does not appear to be correct. 17. This revision in view of what has been indicated hereinabove, so far as the order disposing of the application dated 24-10-1997, deserves to be allowed in part. 18. Accordingly, the order passed by the trial Court disposing of the application dated 24-10-1997 is modified providing that it will be open to the applicants to move an application giving clearly the details of the evidence which they intend to lead in rebuttal. The trial Court shall permit the defendants to lead evidence in rebuttal strictly in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Rajrani (supra) and after examining the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove. The trial Court shall permit the defendants to lead evidence in rebuttal strictly in accordance with the decision of this Court in the case of Rajrani (supra) and after examining the matter in the light of the observations made hereinabove. No such evidence in rebuttal shall be permissible which purports to be in support of any fact which may amount to setting up a special plea. 19. In case the defendants file an application giving details of the evidence sought to be led in rebuttal within three weeks alongwith the certified copy of this order, in that event the trial Court shall consider the said application on merits and pass appropriate orders in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 20. So far as that part of the impugned order which disposes of the application of the defendants dated 22-11-1997 is concerned, in that connection the learned counsel for the plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the order dated 18-10-1997 which was sought to be recalled. 21. In the aforesaid order, the trial Court has given in detail the dilatory tactics adopted by the defendants. It has been noticed that in spite of the repeated opportunities having been provided on more than seven occasions, no written statement had been filed and ultimately on 4-9-1995 the counsel representing the defendants had made a statement that the defendants did not propose to file any written statement. 22. On the facts and circumstances noticed in the order passed by the trial Court dated 18-10-1997, the correctness whereof is not disputed, no justifiable ground can be said to have been made out for any interference by this Court in the impugned order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application dated 22-11-1997. 23. This revision so far as the aforesaid part of the impugned order is concerned deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 24. There shall however be no order as to costs.