JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 23.07.2015 passed by the trial court, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking to lead evidence in rebuttal has been rejected. 2. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents; the same was opposed by the respondents; the trial court framed issues; the petitioner filed affidavits of his witnesses, who were cross-examined and the same was closed; thereafter the defendants led evidence and were cross-examined; after the evidence was closed by the respondent Surja Ram, the petitioner filed application under Order 18, Rule 3 CPC seeking permission to lead evidence in rebuttal. 3. The application was opposed by the defendants; where after, the trial court passed the following order:- " cgl izkFkZuk&i= lquh x;hA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ls n'f"Vxr gS fd oknh ds }kjk iwoZ esa fjC;wVy lk{; fjtoZ ugha j[kh x;h Fkh rFkk vc izdj.k ds bl Lrj ij oknh dks fjC;wVy lk{; ykus dh vuqefr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA vr% izkFkhZ@oknh }kjk izLrqr mDr izkFkZuk&i= vLohdkj dj ,rn~}kjk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl vafre fnukad 31-7-2015 dks is'k gksA " 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner, inasmuch as, the provisions of Order 18 CPC are not mandatory and merely because the petitioner did not reserve the right to produce evidence in rebuttal, the petitioner cannot be deprived of producing the evidence in rebuttal, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, is necessary to be led by the petitioner. 5. Reliance was placed on judgments of this Court in Gad Singh & Ors. v. Phool Chand & Anr. : (1997) 3 RLW (Raj.) 2044 , Narendra Kumar v. Smt. Brahma Devi through her LRs : (2001) 2 RLW (Raj.) 830 , L.M.P. Procession Engineering Company (P) Ltd. v. Ram Narayan : (2004) 2 RLW (Raj.) 712 , Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Nathu Lal Jain & Anr. : (1999) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1250 and Akha Ram v. LRs of Ram Sahal & Anr. : AIR 2009 Rajasthan 138 . 6. : (1999) 2 RLW (Raj.) 1250 and Akha Ram v. LRs of Ram Sahal & Anr. : AIR 2009 Rajasthan 138 . 6. Opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial court was justified in refusing the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal, inasmuch as, the petitioner had not reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal and no explanation can be given for the same as the law in this regard is well settled. 7. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in Kalyan Dass v. Kishan Karan : 1978 RLW 61 and Jhuthi Devi v. Rasool Mohammed & Ors. : 2013 (2) WLC (Raj.) 319 . 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal when petitioner's evidence was closed and that of the defendants was started. 10. The law on the subject regarding right to lead evidence in rebuttal without reserving right is well settled in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Kalyan Dass (supra). However, a different view without distinguishing the judgment in the case of Kalyan Dass (supra) was taken in the case of Gad Singh (supra). 11. However, both the judgments were considered in later judgment of Jhuthi Devi (supra) and it was held as under:- "7. In my considered view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Kalyan Dass is absolutely clear in holding that a further opportunity of leading evidence in rebuttal could not be allowed to a party on the vague ground of "injustice" when such party first leading evidence has failed to reserve its right of leading rebuttal evidence either by way of application in writing or by way of making specific oral request recorded by the court before the commencement of evidence. The subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Gad Singh (supra) appears to have merely side tracked a well considered judgment of this Court in Kalyan Dass (supra) without negating the principle expounded therein. The subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Gad Singh (supra) appears to have merely side tracked a well considered judgment of this Court in Kalyan Dass (supra) without negating the principle expounded therein. In my considered opinion, even involving the principle of "implied option" as enunciated by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prem Singh Pratap Singh (supra) would be of no avail in the present case inasmuch as the drawing of an implied option would be dependent upon the facts of a given case. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that no such case of an implied option to exercise the right to lead rebuttal evidence can be culled out. In fact, no such argument appears to have been raised before the trial court nor in fact was it so argued before this Court or any such ground taken in the petition laid before this Court. Consequently, the principle of 'implied option' enunciated in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prem Singh Pratap Singh (supra) as followed in Gad Singh (supra) is of no avail to the petitioner." 12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court on the issue, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition. 13. So far as the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner, besides the case of Gad Singh (supra), are concerned, in the cases of L.M.P. Procession Engineering Company (P) Ltd., Smt. Shakuntala Devi (supra) and Akha Ram (supra) issue regarding not reserving the right was not before the Court as in those cases in fact the right was reserved by the plaintiff. While in the case of Narendra Kumar (supra) the issue pertained to closing of the evidence.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******