JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (SD), No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 23/2008, Shaitan Singh v. Mangala Ram & Ors. , Whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner filed under Section 151 CPC for permitting the plaintiff-petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal on issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been rejected. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner being plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction praying therein for declaration to the effect that the suit property is of the title and possession of petitioner and the defendants do not have any title, interest or right in it and the documents on the basis of which they claim their rights are null and void as against the petitioner. Consequential permanent injunction has also sought. The suit property has been shown in yellow colour in the map annexed with the plaint and it pertained to old Khasra No. 194 measuring 2 bighas and 5 biswas (New Khasra nos. 202 & 203 measuring 0.54 hectare) in village Badi Ka Bas, Tehsil, Sanganer, District, Jaipur. The defendant-respondents contested the suit by filing a written statement as well as a counter-claim to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner should not interfere in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by them and also a declaration to the effect that the decision dated 26.11.1991 of the Jagir Commissioner, is invalid. 3. The respondent No. 1, the Court below, has framed the following issues, as mentioned in Annexure-1. 1- vk;k oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k okni= dh en la[;k 1 esa of.kZr prqFkZ lhekvksa okyh xzke cMh dk ckl dh tehu dk Lokeh gksus dh ?kks"k.kk djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 2- vk;k oknh fookfnr lEifRr dj dCtk vkSj vfrdze.k vkfn ugha djus ds fy, izfroknhx.k dks ikcUn djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 3- vk;k izfroknhx.k oknhx.k ds fo:) fookfnr lEifRr esa n[kyUnkth vkfn u djus ds fy, LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknhx.k tkxhj vk;qDr ds vkns'k fnukad 26-11-91 dks voS/k ?kksf"kr djkus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 5- vk;k fookfnr lEifRr dk ewY;kadu Bhd u djus ds dkj.k nkok ij D;k vlj gS\ 6- vuqrks"k\ 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has submitted that since the counter claim with regard to issue nos. Learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner has submitted that since the counter claim with regard to issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 has been filed and burden of proof of these issues have been shifted to respondent-defendants, hence, after closing the evidence of defendant-respondents, the plaintiff-petitioner was having right to lead evidence in regard to issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 the Court-below without considering the legal provisions, wrongly denied this right on the pretext that after closing evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner, the plaintiff has failed to reserve his right to rebut the evidence, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure-4) may be set-aside and the plaintiff-petitioner may be given right to lead his evidence in regard to issue nos. 3, 4 and 5. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendant- respondents, has supported the impugned order dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure-4) and submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner's evidence has been closed on his own, a similar application was filed before the respondent No. 1 on 25.5.2011 and the same was dismissed by the Court-below, on 15.2.2012 with a detailed order. Again on the same averments, another application was filed, which 5 was rightly dismissed by the Court-below i.e. respondent No. 1 vide order dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure-4) and submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is not disputed that the defendant-respondents claimed their rights by counter-claim, also by way of written statement and the issues Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were framed. The burden of proof of these issues has been shifted to the defendant-respondents under Order 8, Rule 6A CPC which reads as under:- "[6A. Counter-claim by defendant.-(1) A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter-claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Such counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit so as to enable the Court to pronounce a final judgment in the same suit, both on the original claim and on the counter-claim. (3) the plaintiff shall be at liberty to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the defendant within such period as may be fixed by the Court. (4) The counter-claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaints.]" 8. A bare perusal of the above provision, clearly shows that the counter-claim shall have the same effect as a suit and plaintiff-petitioner has a statutory right to file a written statement in answer to the counter-claim of the respondent-defendants and the counter claim shall be treated as a plaint and governed by the rules applicable to plaint. Order 18, Rule 2 CPC provides that after closing evidence of one party the other party shall have a right to produce his evidence, if any, treating the counter claim as a plaint after closing evidence of defendants with regard to counter claim, the plaintiff has a right to produce his evidence and it is the duty of the Court to give proper opportunity to the plaintiff to lead his evidence in regard to issues framed on the basis of the counter claim. From the perusal of the order impugned (Annexure-4), it is clear that after closing evidence of defendant-respondents, no opportunity was ever given to the plaintiff petitioner to rebut the evidence produced by the defendant-respondents in regard to issue nos. 3, 4 and 5 as such the learned Court-below, the respondent no. 1 has failed to exercise its jurisdiction and powers vested in it. 9. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order (Annexure-4) dated 17.8.2012 is set-aside and I direct the respondent No. 1, the Court-below to provide reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner to rebut the evidence in regard to issue nos. 3, 4 and 5. However, it is expected from the respondent No. 1, the Court-below to hear and decide the suit in question expeditiously.Resultantly, the writ petition as well as the stay application are disposed of.Writ Petition and stay Application Disposed of as above. *******