ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Court of City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 4952/2007 rejecting I.A. Nos. 15 and 16 filed by the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 3. Facts leading to filing of this petition narrated briefly are, petitioners had filed O.S. No. 4952/2007 before the Trial Court seeking the relief of specific performance. In the said suit, the contesting defendants had filed their written statement and opposed the suit claim. The Trial Court had framed as many as 13 issues in the said suit. Since the issues which were framed in the suit cast the burden on both the parties to the prove the same, after completion of plaintiffs evidence on several issues, the plaintiffs had filed a memo on 10.07.2012 reserving his right to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC after completion of defendants side evidence. The said memo was taken on record by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the defendants had completed their evidence and when the suit was posted for the purpose of arguments, I.A. Nos. 15 and 16 were filed by the plaintiffs to re-open the case and to permit the plaintiffs to lead rebuttal evidence. The said applications were opposed by the defendants by filing objections and the Trial Court vide the order impugned had dismissed the said applications and being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs had filed a memo reserving liberty to lead rebuttal evidence and after completion of defendants evidence, they have sought leave of the court to lead rebuttal evidence. However, the Trial Court without appreciating the same has erred in rejecting the said applications and an opportunity of putting forward their case has been denied to the plaintiffs. He submits that after the defendants have completed their evidence, the plaintiffs have a right to lead rebuttal evidence as provided under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is not sustainable. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Doddabasamma vs. Smt. Neelamma, 2015 SCC Online Kar. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Doddabasamma vs. Smt. Neelamma, 2015 SCC Online Kar. 2976 and the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Prahallad Agarwalla vs. Bijay Shankar Chandgotia, 2009 SCC Online Ori. 326. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submits that after the memo was filed on 10.07.2012, no orders have been passed by the Trial Court on the said memo, and therefore, the same has to be considered as not accepted by the Trial Court. He submits that voluminous evidence has been already led by the plaintiffs, and therefore, they are not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence as prayed for. He also submits that the application was not filed immediately after the completion of defendants evidence and the same was filed at the stage when the suit was posted for arguments, and therefore, the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the applications. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed on both the sides and also perused the material available on record. 7. Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC reads as under: “3. Evidence where several issues - Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” 8. A reading of the aforesaid provision would make it clear that whenever there are several issues framed in a suit and the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party and the burden to prove some other issues lies on the other party, the party beginning the evidence at his option can produce his evidence on all the issues or reserve the evidence as an answer to the evidence produced by the other party and on such reservation being made, the party beginning may produce the evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence and the other party has a right of reply to the evidence produced by the party beginning with the evidence. 9. In the case on hand, since the issues framed by the Trial Court cast burden on both the parties to prove the issues, the plaintiffs after completing their evidence on some issues have filed a memo reserving their right to lead rebuttal evidence after the defendants completed their part of the evidence. The said memo dated 10.07.2012 was taken on record by the Trial Court, and thereafter, the defendants were called upon to lead evidence and accordingly after completion of defendants evidence, when the suit was posted for the purpose of final arguments, the applications I.A. Nos. 15 and 16 have been filed by the plaintiffs to re-open the case and to permit them to lead rebuttal evidence. 10. The material on record would clearly go to show that the plaintiffs have reserved liberty to lead rebuttal evidence before the defendants commenced their evidence. This Court in Smt. Doddabasamma's case (supra), has observed as under: “5......Merely because, there is some delay in filing the applications, if such right which was reserved is denied prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff. It is in that light, since the rebuttal evidence had not been permitted at the first instance, the application seeking recall of PW1 was also filed. The effect of both the applications is that the plaintiff is seeking to tender evidence by way of rebuttal evidence on Issue No. 2 and to that extent, the document as indicated in I.A. No. IX is sought to be filed. The effect of both the applications is that the plaintiff is seeking to tender evidence by way of rebuttal evidence on Issue No. 2 and to that extent, the document as indicated in I.A. No. IX is sought to be filed. On such rebuttal evidence being tendered on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendant in any event would have the right to cross-examine the witness and all disputes relating to the documents relied on or the manner in which it had been procured could be put forth in the cross-examination. Therefore, if an opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence within the time frame to be prescribed by the Court below, the ends of justice would be met.” 11. In Prahallad Agarwalla's case (supra), the High Court of Orissa has observed as under: “5......There is no doubt that if a party has opted to reserve his right to produce evidence on the issues burden of proving which lies on the other party Order-18, Rule 3 of the CPC entitles him to give evidence by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party after the latter has produced all his evidence. It is also the settled position of law that Order 18, Rule 3, CPC does not prescribe any mode for exercising the option and thus it does not require a regular application to be filed while exercising the option. It has been further held that it would suffice if the party apprises the Court of his exercising option and that although the provision does not prescribe any particular stage at which the option should be exercised, it is only fair and reasonable that the same should be exercised before the party begins his evidence and in no case after evidence from the other side has begun.” 12. In a case wherein there are several issues and when the onus to prove certain issues is on the other side, the party leading evidence first, always has a right to lead rebuttal evidence, provided he reserves such liberty before the other party commences its evidence. It is for the party leading evidence first to decide whether he will lead evidence on all issues or only on issues on which onus to prove the same is on him or he may reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence after the other party completes his evidence. It is for the party leading evidence first to decide whether he will lead evidence on all issues or only on issues on which onus to prove the same is on him or he may reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence after the other party completes his evidence. Rebuttal evidence is permissible only in respect of such issues on which onus to prove is on the other side and the said opportunity cannot be utilized to fill up the lacuna in the evidence of the party leading evidence first. 13. In the present case, the plaintiffs have filed a memo before the defendants had commenced their evidence reserving their right to lead rebuttal evidence, and therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the applications - I.A. Nos. 15 and 16. Under the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the following order: 14. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S. No. 4952/2007 on I.A. Nos. 15 and 16 is quashed. I.A. Nos. 15 and 16 are allowed. The Trial Court is directed to fix the time frame within which the rebuttal evidence shall be tendered by the plaintiffs and if the plaintiffs do not avail the opportunity to lead the rebuttal evidence within the time frame, the same would stand forfeited and the plaintiffs shall not make out any grievance thereafter. It is needless to state that the defendants shall have the right to cross-examine the plaintiffs witnesses.