ORDER : Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 7.5.2007 (Annx.5) passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Bassi (Jaipur) in Civil Suit No. 26/1997, Ram Kishore v. Roop Narain & Anr. 2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants No. 1 and 2. Counsel further submits that the trial court after conclusion of pleadings had drawn following issues:- ^^1- D;k okni= ds iSjk la[;k 1 esa o.kZukuqlkj oknh oknxzLr Hkwfe dk ,d ek= ekfyd o dkfct gS\ oknh 2- D;k okni= ds iSjk la[;k&2 esa of.kZr lhek;sa lgh gSa\ oknh 3- D;k oknh ,oa xzke iapk;r gal egy ds chp fookfnr fodz; i= xzke iapk;r gal egy dks mDr Hkw[k.M ds gLrkUrj.k dh dksbZ 'kfDr izkIr ugha gksus ls iw.kZr% voS/k ,oa vukf/kd`r gS] ftlls oknh dks dksbZ dkuwuh vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gSa\ izfroknhx.k 4- D;k oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ij izfroknhx.k dk tokc nkos ds iSjk la[;k&1 ds vuqlkj okLrfod ,oa HkkSfrd dCtk gS\ izfroknhx.k 5- D;k fookfnr lEifRr dk ewY; ipkl gtkj :i;s ls vf/kd gS\ bl vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; dk okn dh lquokbZ dk {ks=kf/kdkj izkIr ugha gS\ izfroknhx.k 6 vuqrks"k\** 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that qua issues No. 3, 4 and 5 onus was upon the defendants to prove these issues. Counsel has submitted that the defendants led evidence to prove issues No. 3, 4 and 5. Counsel has submitted that issue No. 4 is very specific. By way of issue No. 4, defendants have been called upon to prove whether as per Para-1 of the written statement, they are in actual physical possession of the demised premises or not. Counsel has submitted that the plaintiff-petitioner has produced affidavit of Madho Lal Sarpanch (Annx.1) to say that the plaintiff-petitioner is having possession over the demised premises. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Shiv Ram Singh Sihag another witness whose affidavit (Annx.2) has been submitted had acted as a local commissioner and had inspected the spot. Counsel has submitted that both the witnesses were necessary to rebut the evidence led by the defendants. According to the counsel for the petitioner, grave error has been committed by the court below to deny opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner. 4. Counsel has submitted that both the witnesses were necessary to rebut the evidence led by the defendants. According to the counsel for the petitioner, grave error has been committed by the court below to deny opportunity of rebuttal to the petitioner. 4. None is present on behalf of the respondents. I have perused the impugned order. 5. The trial court has declined the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner primarily on the ground that earlier same affidavits were presented, but same were not accepted. It was further held by the court below that the facts stated in the affidavits are not such which fall within the ambit of evidence to be led in the rebuttal. 6. After perusal of the impugned order and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that fair play and balance of equities demand that an effective opportunity ought to be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to rebut the evidence led by the defendants especially for the issues for which onus was upon the defendants. 7. Consequently, the present petition is accepted. Impugned order is set aside. The trial court is directed to take affidavit of Madho Lal and Shiv Ram Singh Sihag annexed with the present petition as Annexures-1 and 2 respectively, on record. The trial court shall also offer an opportunity to the defendants to cross-examine these witnesses. 8. Considering that the suit is pending since 1997, the trial court is directed to conclude the proceedings arising out of the suit within three months. If necessary, trial court may proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis.