Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1616 (RAJ)

Premchand v. Suganchand

2022-05-17

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2022
ORDER 1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 08.12.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No.141/2014 (131/2006) whereby, an application filed by the respondent-defendant for confining plaintiff's rebuttal evidence to the extent of issue no.2, has been allowed as also the order dated 07.04.2022 whereby, his application seeking review of the order dated 08.12.2021, has been dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that in a suit filed by the petitioner for declaration, learned trial Court was pleased to frame two issues including the issue no.2 pertaining to the suit being barred by limitation with its burden of proof upon the defendant. After closure of the plaintiff's evidence, his right of rebuttal evidence was kept reserved. After conclusion of defendant's evidence, the petitioner filed an affidavit in rebuttal evidence whereupon, an application came to be filed by the defendant stating therein that averments in the affidavit of the plaintiff travel beyond the scope of rebuttal evidence which is confined to issue no.2 only. The learned trial Court has, vide its order dated 08.12.2021, allowed the application filed by the defendant and has directed consideration of the affidavit filed by the plaintiff to the extent of issue no.2 only. A review petition filed thereagainst by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 07.04.2022 and both the orders are subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the learned trial Court, canvassed that after completion of his evidence, his right of rebuttal evidence was kept reserved without any limitation and hence, the learned trial Court erred in allowing the application filed by the defendant vide its order dated 08.12.2021. He submitted that he wanted to exhibit certain documents in his rebuttal evidence which came into his notice after completion of his evidence and since, his right of rebuttal evidence was not confined to issue no.2 only, the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. Learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendant after appreciating the facts of the case in the backdrop of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. Learned trial Court has allowed the application filed by the defendant after appreciating the facts of the case in the backdrop of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC permit a party to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party only on those issues burden of proof of which lays upon the other party. Since, burden of proof on issue no.2 only was upon the defendant, it was permissible for the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal qua that issue only and in the garb of rebuttal evidence, he cannot be permitted to fill in lacuna in his evidence. 6. Order 18 Rule 3 CPC reads as under: 'Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at this 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 produce by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.' 7. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, this Court does not find that the order dated 08.12.2021 suffers from any jurisdictional error. This Court has gone through the order dated 20.12.2017 and does not find that it gives unbriddled right of rebuttal evidence to the plaintiff. The learned trial Court has already examined the scope of the order dated 20.12.2017 in light of statutory provisions contained under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. 8. This Court is not satisfied that the order dated 08.12.2021 and the order dated 07.04.2022 suffer from any patent jurisdictional error or illegality warranting interference of this Court under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.