JUDGMENT S.D.Anand, J.:- The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a plea for additional/rebuttal evidence which came to be declined by the learned Trial Court, vide impugned order dated 24.2.2009. The plaintiffs-petitioners had otherwise applied for the leave of the Court to tender into evidence the following documents :- “1) Copy of Khatauni Istemal with Punjabi translation. 2) Copy of Naksha Hakdarwar with Punjabi translation. 3) Copy of Khatauni Pamaishwith Punjabi translation. 4) Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1937-38 with Punjabi translation. 5) Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1944-45 with Punjabi translation. 6) Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1954-55 with Punjabi translation. 7) Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1960-61 with Punjabi translation. 8) Certified copy of the judgment and decree of Sh.P.S.Dhanoa, Sub Judge, Amritsar dated 24.12.1994. 9) Certified copy of the orders of Sh.S.P.Sood, Civil Judge (JD) Amritsar dated 31.1.2002. 10) Certified copy of the stay order by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in case Ramesh Kumar and others Vs. Madan Mohan dated 22.11.2005. 11) Certified copy of stay order in case Anand Singh and others Vs. Madan Mohan dated 10.1.2006. 12) Certified copy of the sale deed executed by Lala Kahn Chand son of Lala Isher Dass dated 14.7.1956 with Punjabi translation. 13) Certified copy of sale deed executed by Major Harinder Singh Sahib Sandhawalia dated 12.5.1953 with punjabi translation. 14) Certified copy of sale deed executed by Kamla Wati wd/o Rai Bahadur Lala Bishan Das with punjabi translation. 15) Certified copy of sale deed dated 6.12.96 executed by Manohar Singh son of Gurbax Singh in favour of Ajmer Singh son of Joginder Singh. 16) Electricity bills. 17) Site plans prepared by Harminder Singh Architect under instruction of the plaintiff. 18) Certified copy of order of Sh.S.K.Garg, ADJ, Amritsar dated 1.5.2003. 19) Copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98. 2. The plea was resisted by the party opposite. 3. In obtaining the view under challenge the learned Trial court was influenced by the fact that the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners had been closed under the orders of the Court on 22.5.2002; whereas the plea for additional evidence came to be filed only on 16.2.2006. It also noticed that the documents aforementioned had neither been relied upon nor referred to in the pleadings at the trial. It also noticed that the documents aforementioned had neither been relied upon nor referred to in the pleadings at the trial. The learned Trial Court proceeded to notice that the application had been filed at the fag end of the trial when the evidence of the party opposite was already over. There also was no explanation why the plaintiffs-petitioners delayed the filing of the additional evidence plea for so long. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners, argued that the reception of the documents aforementioned (most of which do not require any formal proof) shall enable complete and effective adjudication of the controversy at the trial. It was also argued that the order dated 22.5.2002 of the learned Trial Court directing the closure of evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners had been set aside by this Court in revision and the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners came to be closed thereafter only vide a statement and it is, thus, not a case where the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners had been closed under the orders of the Court. In support of the view that the plaintiffs-petitioners had not foregone his entitlement to adduce rebuttal evidence, the learned counsel placed reliance upon Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others [2006(4) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 3199] : 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 115 (P&H). 5. The plea advocated on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be negatived. The reasons therefor are as under:- 6. By the time, the plea for the leave of the Court to adduce additional/rebuttal evidence came to be filed, the evidence of both the parties was already over. The plea aforementioned, thus, came to be filed at the fag end of the trial. The plaintiffs-petitioners were cognizant of their pleadings from the filing of the suit itself. There is not even a word to clarify why did the plaintiffs-petitioners refrain from filing the plea aforementioned for so long. 7. There is also no force in the plea on behalf of the petitioners that the plaintiffs-petitioners are entitled to adduce evidence aforementioned in rebuttal just because the plaintiffs-petitioners had closed the evidence in affirmative only. By the very nature of things, the essential onus to prove the plea of affirmative character would be upon the party filing a cause. The party opposite shall discharge the onus of proving the issues it raised. By the very nature of things, the essential onus to prove the plea of affirmative character would be upon the party filing a cause. The party opposite shall discharge the onus of proving the issues it raised. In response thereto too, it is only in the latter category of cases that the plaintiff to a cause shall have entitlement to adduce rebuttal evidence. There is, thus, a clear distinction about the nature of evidence a party filing a cause is entitled to lead. This view of mine finds full support from a Division Bench ruling rendered by this Court in Jagdev Singh and others Vs. Darshan Singh and others, [2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 1854] : 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 794. In that view of things, the plaintiffs-petitioners cannot claim entitlement to adduce the aforementioned evidence in rebuttal. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon Surjit Singh’s case (supra) is misconceived. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. ------------