ORDER : 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 whereby the petitioner-plaintiff’s (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’) application under Section 151 CPC seeking an opportunity to file evidence in defence to the evidence of defendant no.1 on issue no.4 struck on the defendant’s counter claim has been dismissed. 2. Mr.Gaurav Sharma appearing for the plaintiff submitted that in a suit for partition and permanent injunction laid against the respondent-defendants (hereinafter ‘defendants’), aside of filing the written statement of denial, a counter claim was also filed stating that the plaintiff was a licensee and subsequent to the revocation of the license the defendants were entitled to the possession of the premises with the plaintiff as also mesne profits subsequent to the revocation. On the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed as under:- ^^1- vk;k oknxzLr tk;nkn oknh o izfroknhx.k dh la;qDr vfoHkkftr tk;nkn gSA tks fd edku uEcj 2274&2275 nsoknkl dh cxhph [ktkuksa okyks dk jkLrk] pkSdMh rksi[kkuk ns'k] t;iqj dh gS tks t;iqj esa fLFkr gS ftldk oknh okbZ ehV~l ,.M ckmUMl foHkktu dj viuk 1@3 fgLlk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 2- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcan djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS fd os oknxzLr tk;nkn esa dks rdlhy ugha djs vkSj u gh foØ; djs vkSj u gh fdlh dks fdjk;s ij mBk;s oknh dh mDr 'kkafriwoZd miHkksx esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dh ck/kk dkfjr u djsA 3- vk;k oknxzLr tk;nkn izfroknh la[;k 1 dh feyfd;r gS tks tfj;s jftLVªMZ olh;r rkjh[k 07-04-1938 dks mls izkIr gqbZ gS vr% oknh dk dksbZ fgLlk okn xzLr tk;nkn esa fgLlk u gksus ds dkj.k caVckjk djk ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 dkmUVj Dyse ds eqrkfcd oknh ls oknxzLr tk;nkn dk dCtk o gtZ bLrekyh 5000@& :i;s izfrekg izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 5- vk;k nkos esa E;kn cgkjA 6- vuqrks"kA** 3. Mr.Gaurav Sharma submitted that on issue no.4 struck on the averments in the counter claim and the denial thereof by the plaintiff the burden was on the defendants to begin their evidence as per Order 18 Rule 1 read with Order 8 Rule 6-A to 6-G CPC. Only subsequent to the defendant’s evidence on issue no.4 the plaintiff had the right to lead his defence evidence. Only subsequent to the defendant’s evidence on issue no.4 the plaintiff had the right to lead his defence evidence. It was submitted that yet subsequent to the laying of the evidence by the defendant on issue no.4, the plaintiff was not given any opportunity for his defence evidence. It was submitted that indeed prior to the closure of evidence of the parties on the issues before the trial court this fact was not brought to its notice as in any event law of procedure did not so require. The counter claim being in the nature of a suit and the written statement thereto reflected in the rejoinder, on issue framed thereon, Order 18 Rule 1 and 2 had to be adhered to. That procedure was not followed by the trial court in respect of issue no.4 struck on the counterclaim. Hence subsequently on this aspect being brought to the trial court’s notice in the plaintiff’s application under Section 151 CPC qua issue no.4 it was incumbent upon the trial court in the interest of justice to allow the plaintiff to lead his defence evidence on issue no.4 arising from the counter-claim. Dismissing of the said application by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 is an error of jurisdiction warranting correction by the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of the court. 4. Mr.C.P. Sharma appearing with Mr.Kapil Sharma for the defendants submitted that the application under Section 151 CPC moved by the plaintiff on 08.03.2018 was a gross misuse of the process of the court and intended only to delay the final judgment in the trial court of the suit pending since 2013 in which evidence of the parties was completed on 05.02.2018. It was submitted that the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit had lead evidence on all six issues before the trial court. It was submitted that evidence on issue no.4 as to whether the plaintiff was a licensee of the defendant was laid by the defendants who was put to cross-examination thereon. In his evidence the plaintiff had asserted his right other then as a license to the suit property. It was submitted that evidence on issue no.4 as to whether the plaintiff was a licensee of the defendant was laid by the defendants who was put to cross-examination thereon. In his evidence the plaintiff had asserted his right other then as a license to the suit property. It was submitted that in the circumstances all requisite evidence as to the status of the plaintiff as a licensee or otherwise in the suit premises relevant to issue no.4 was before the trial court and the application under Section 151 CPC seeking to lead defence evidence on that very aspect was a procedural swerve, a mere tactic to delay the final judgment in the suit pending for final arguments. In fact since 05.02.2018, another miscellaneous application filed subsequent to closure of evidence of the parties had been dismissed by the trial court on 22.2.2018. No challenge to the said order dated 22.02.2018 was laid and it became final. Yet on the very same grounds possibly more specifically articulated another application this time under Section 151 CPC was moved on 08.03.2018. That application has been dismissed by the trial court under the impugned order also dated 8.3.2018 by a detailed order inter alia taking into consideration the earlier application dismissed on 22.02.2018 and the suit was at the stage of final arguments. It was submitted that no party in a suit has an inexhaustible right to move miscellaneous application/s in the course of the suit particularly at the stage of final arguments. The trial court has thus rightly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiff’s application under impugned order dated 08.03.2018. No prejudice on facts of the case has even remotely been caused to the plaintiff’s case or defence to the counter claim. The impugned order deserves no interference in the exercise of the court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. Admittedly, the evidence of the parties before the trial court concluded and was closed on 05.02.2018 on all issues struck before the Trial Court both on the suit and counter claim. No request was made by the plaintiff to lead his purported defence evidence on issue no.4 at the relevant time, he so having earlier so done. Heard. Considered. 6. Admittedly, the evidence of the parties before the trial court concluded and was closed on 05.02.2018 on all issues struck before the Trial Court both on the suit and counter claim. No request was made by the plaintiff to lead his purported defence evidence on issue no.4 at the relevant time, he so having earlier so done. As application dated 22.02.2018 after the suit was listed for final arguments, purporting to the one under Order 18 Rule 1 and 2 CPC at the instance of the plaintiff inter alia invoking issue no.4 as framed on the counter claim was also dismissed by the trial court. No challenge was made to the said order which attained finality. Yet another application under Section 151 CPC on the same facts was moved before the trial court on 08.03.2018 which has now been dismissed by the impugned order. Further the record of the examination and cross-examination of the witnesses for plaintiff and defendants annexed to the petition indicates that their requisite evidence on issue no.4 was laid for whatever its worth before the trial court. On appreciation thereof the trial court will render its findings thereon amongst others. It appears in the circumstances of the case that the application dated 08.03.2018 filed by the plaintiff was with the sole intent of delaying the trial inasmuch as his defence to the counter claim reflected in issue no.4 is already on record. No prejudice thus will be occasioned to the plaintiff if the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 is not interfered with, as prayed for. 7. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no force in the petition. Dismissed. 8. However on the concession of the counsel for the defendant the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 would stand modified insofar as it relates to the costs. They shall not be payable by the plaintiff. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit before it allowing the plaintiff as also the defendants their reasonable arguments on the evidence laid and applicable law within the time frame as earlier directed by this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17908/2016 decided on 13.10.2017.