JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.:- This is plaintiff’s revision petition challenging the order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Phillaur, whereby evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner in rebuttal has been ordered to be closed by order. 2. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner led his evidence and closed the same in the affirmative. Thereafter, the defendant-respondents No.1 to 3 also led their evidence. Meanwhile, respondent No.4 was impleaded as a party in the suit vide order dated 12.9.2008. After respondent No.4 closed his evidence, the suit was adjourned for petitioner’s evidence in rebuttal and arguments. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he moved an application dated 21.2.2009 for depositing the diet money for summoning of the witnesses which he intended to examine in rebuttal evidence. The suit was fixed for 3.3.2009. However, the trial Court without passing any order for depositing the diet money etc. for summoning of the witnesses, declined the prayer of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses and further ordered the closing of the evidence in rebuttal and posted the suit for final arguments. 4. Challenging the aforesaid order in this revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that defendant-respondent No.4 was allowed to be arrayed as a party at the fag end of the case who had taken a specific stand that the drainage of the water at the disputed site was continuing for the last 30 years through the underground pipes and no objection was raised by any of the inhabitants of the village to this arrangement. He also took up a plea that natural flow of the water from the village was also towards the site in dispute whereas the averment of the petitioner in the plaint was that respondents No.1 to 3 had illegally diverted the flow of dirty water from the village pond towards the site in dispute by putting underground pipes across the canal minor 20 days prior to the date of filing of the suit without the permission of the Canal and Drainage Authorities. The petitioner had made a complaint with regard to putting of underground pipes by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat illegally and an enquiry with regard to this complaint was carried out by Ziledar, Apra, who had submitted his report and for proving the said enquiry report, the witnesses sought to be summoned were necessary to be produced in rebuttal evidence. 5. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kewal Singh v. Jagjit Singh 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 631, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff though had been negligent in leading the evidence in the affirmative which he wants to produce now, but for such a lapse the other side can well be compensated with costs and the basic rule of law is that wherever ends of justice demand, the procedural law should be construed liberally to achieve such ends rather than to scuttle the parties, right at the trial stage. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. From the facts narrated above, it is crystal clear that while closing his evidence, the petitioner had not reserved his right to lead evidence after closure of evidence by the defendant-respondents. It is well settled that in rebuttal the plaintiff can lead evidence only to the issues the burden of proof which was on the defendants. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to point out the issues or the evidence led by the defendants, to which he wants to produce rebuttal evidence. In fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not controvert the fact that the evidence which the petitioner wants to lead in rebuttal is in support of issues No.1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff and in regard to these issues, the petitioner has already led evidence in the affirmative and his evidence as such stands closed. Thus, in my view, the effort of the petitioner seems to fill up the lacuna left by him to prove issues No.1 and 2 under the garb of rebuttal evidence. No doubt, the provisions of CPC are handmaid for the administration of justice; however, the same cannot be construed so liberally that it may result into putting the other party to a disadvantage. No doubt, the provisions of CPC are handmaid for the administration of justice; however, the same cannot be construed so liberally that it may result into putting the other party to a disadvantage. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. ------------------