JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this writ petition and by a suitable writ, order or direction may kindly be issued to the effect that: a) The rebuttal evidence (Annexure-7) filed by the petitioner may kindly be marked as exhibits and the documents placed therewith be allowed to be admitted in evidence in part D. b) The order impugned dated 19.9.2022 (Annexure-10) allowing the application filed by the defendant No.2 under Order 18 Rule 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. c) That in the alternate and without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Ld. Trial Court be directed to recall the witness of the petitioner so that relevant evidence may be led. d) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. e) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the District Judge, Jodhpur, which was later on transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No.5, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) seeking reliefs of cancellation of sale deed executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent-defendant No.2 alleging that though the respondent-defendant No.1 executed an agreement on 28.06.2004 for sale of land in question in favour of petitioner-plaintiff but later on he transferred the said land in favour of the respondent-defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 13.05.2005. It was alleged by the petitioner-plaintiff that the said transfer of land by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami, therefore, the same be cancelled. 3. The respondent-defendants contested the suit denying the allegations that the transaction is Benami. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the trial court framed as many as 13 issues, however, later on, one additional issue was framed and one issue was amended. The evidence of the parties was concluded and opportunity was awarded to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. On the basis of the pleadings of the party, the trial court framed as many as 13 issues, however, later on, one additional issue was framed and one issue was amended. The evidence of the parties was concluded and opportunity was awarded to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. At this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC with a prayer for summoning certain documents from the Income Tax Department pertaining to the proceedings initiated against respondent-defendant No.3, wherein the Income Tax Department has concluded that the sale deed executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami and thereafter order of attachment of the property has also been passed by the Income Tax Authority. The said application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff came to be dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 03.02.2020 while observing that those documents are not at all relevant. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 03.02.2020, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2037/2020 before this Court and a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2020 while allowing the said writ petition has set aside the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by the trial court and also ordered for allowing the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC with further direction to the trial court to summon the documents/record as prayed by the petitioner-plaintiff in its application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Jaipur. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2020 passed by this Court, the said documents were summoned by the trial court and at this stage, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an affidavit in rebuttal evidence on 27.01.2021 exhibiting the documents so summoned from the Income Tax Department. The respondent-defendant No.2 preferred an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC stating that the rebuttal evidence filed by the petitioner-plaintiff through additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be taken on record as the same is in violation of provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC. 5. The respondent-defendant No.2 preferred an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC stating that the rebuttal evidence filed by the petitioner-plaintiff through additional affidavit cannot be permitted to be taken on record as the same is in violation of provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC. 5. It is contended that as per Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, the right to lead evidence in rebuttal can be exercised by a party in relation to those issues wherein the onus of proving them lies on the other party but in the instant case, the onus of proving issue “whether the sale-deed dated 13.05.2005 is Benami or not” is on the petitioner-plaintiff and, therefore, the right to rebuttal cannot be granted. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a reply to the said application, however, the trial court vide order dated 19.09.2022 has partly allowed the application preferred by the respondent-defendant No.2 under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC and rejected the prayer of the petitioner-plaintiff to exhibit the relevant documents summoned by the I.T. Department. Being aggrieved with the same, this writ petition is being preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has argued that the trial court has proceeded to allow the application filed by the respondent-defendant No.2 under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC on hyper technical ground. It is argued that the documents, which the petitioner-plaintiff wants to place on record in rebuttal evidence were those documents in respect of which a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.02.2020 passed in SBCWP No.2037/2020 has clearly held that those documents are relevant. It is argued that once this Court has held that the documents, which are sought to be produced in rebuttal evidence, are relevant then there was no occasion for the trial court to disallow those documents. 7. It is further argued that the documents pertaining to the Income Tax Department, summoned by the trial court, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.02.2020, cannot be rendered as mere showpiece and the same ought to be taken on record by marking them as ‘exhibits’. 8. 7. It is further argued that the documents pertaining to the Income Tax Department, summoned by the trial court, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 13.02.2020, cannot be rendered as mere showpiece and the same ought to be taken on record by marking them as ‘exhibits’. 8. It is also submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 13.02.2020 has rejected the contention of the respondent-defendant that the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence and he was required to file an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and Order XI CPC while observing that the said arguments have no substance. 9. Learned counsel Mr Balia Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Pragya Lakhani has submitted that the observation/direction given by this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2020 operates as res judicata against the respondents-defendant and as such they do not have any right to object the placing of documents of the I.T. Department on record. It is argued that it is well settled that principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. 10. It is further argued that even if it is assumed that in view of the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, the documents produced by the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be taken on record as rebuttal evidence, the trial court should have allowed the petitioner to produce those documents as additional evidence by providing opportunity to the petitioner-plaintiff No.2 to lead additional evidence in view of the fact that this has already held that those documents are relevant. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is well settled that technicalities of law should be construed to advance justice and not to defeat justice. 12. Learned counsel has further argued that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in the form of rebuttal evidence should have been treated by the trial court as an application for allowing the petitioner-plaintiff to lead additional evidence because it is not in dispute that the documents sought to be produced on record as additional evidence were not available with him at the time of producing his evidence before the trial court. 13. 13. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that the order impugned may kindly be set aside and the petitioner-plaintiff be allowed to produce those documents summoned by the trial court pursuant to the direction given by this Court in order dated 13.02.2020 in rebuttal evidence or alternatively, the petitioner-plaintiff be allowed to lead additional evidence in respect of those documents. 14. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-defendants has vehemently opposed this writ petition and argued that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order disallowing the petitioner-plaintiff to produce rebuttal evidence in respect of the issue, onus of proving whereof is on the petitioner-plaintiff. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants has argued that the language of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC is unambiguous, which suggests that a party would only be entitled to rebuttal evidence if the onus is on the opposite side. It is submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit claimed that the transaction in question is Benami and the trial court has framed the specific issue on this point and the onus of proving the same is on the petitioner-plaintiff. In such circumstances, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot lead rebuttal evidence in respect of the issue, which is to be proved by him only. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-defendants has placed reliance on a decision of Delhi High Court rendered in Hemant Kumar Singhal vs. Indian Overseas Bank and Anr., reported in (2020) 267 DLT 639. 17. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record. 18. The petitioner-plaintiff, in the suit, has claimed that the registered sale deed executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami. The trial court has framed a specific issue on this point and onus of proving the same is upon the petitioner-plaintiff, however, the petitioner-plaintiff moved an application under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC before the trial court with a prayer for summoning some documents from the Income Tax Department, wherein the Income Tax Department has concluded that the sale of the property in question by the respondent-defendant No.1 in favour of the respondent-defendant No.2 is Benami. The trial court has rejected the said application. The trial court has rejected the said application. The said action of the trial court was questioned by the petitioner-plaintiff before this Court and this Court vide order dated 13.02.2020 has set aside the order passed by the trial court, whereby it has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC and directed the trial court to summon the documents/record from the I.T. Department, description of which is given in the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC. 19. In the order dated 13.02.2020, this Court has made following observations: “The conclusion of the trial court pertaining to the irrelevance of the documents is apparently against the record inasmuch as, as already noticed, the plaint is inter alia based on the allegation pertaining to transaction being Benami and irrespective of the fact as to whether the same would have any implication ultimately qua the relief claimed in the suit, the petitioner essentially is entitled to lead evidence qua the said fact and once the documents sought to be summoned pertain to the said aspect, the rejection by indicating the same as irrelevant cannot be sustained. ………… Various submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent pertaining to delay in the suit, the fact that the plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence and that provisions of Order VII Rule 14 and Order XI CPC were not followed, apparently have no substance inasmuch as once the court has permitted leading of rebuttal evidence, the defendant cannot preempt the fact as to what evidence can be or would be led by the plaintiff.” 20. From the above, it is clear that this Court has given a specific finding that the documents ought to be summoned by the petitioner-plaintiff from the I.T. Department are relevant. The court has also rejected the contention of the respondents-defendants that the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence. 21. The order dated 13.02.2020 passed by this Court has not been reversed or modified and the same has attained finality. 22. It is settled that the principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. Reference can be placed on the decisions rendered in (i) Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar [(2005) SCC 787], (ii) Satyadhyan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi ( AIR 1960 SC 941 ), (iii) Prahalad Singh vs. Col. 22. It is settled that the principles of res judicata apply in different stages of the same proceedings. Reference can be placed on the decisions rendered in (i) Bhanu Kumar Jain vs. Archana Kumar [(2005) SCC 787], (ii) Satyadhyan Ghosal vs. Deorajin Debi ( AIR 1960 SC 941 ), (iii) Prahalad Singh vs. Col. Sukhdev Singh [ (1987) 1 SCC 727 ], (iv) Y. B. Patil vs. Y. L. Patil [ (1976) 4 SCC 66 ], (v) Vijayabai vs. Shriram Tukaram [ (1999) 1 SCC 693 ] and (vi) Hope Plantations Ltd. vs. Taluk Land Board Peermade [ (1999) 5 SCC 590 ]. 23. As observed earlier, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 13.02.2020 has held that the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner-plaintiff in rebuttal evidence are relevant and the objection of the respondent-defendants of not allowing the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence has specifically been rejected while observing that the respondent-defendants are barred from raising the objection that the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence in respect of the issue, onus of proving the same is saddled upon the petitioner-plaintiff, therefore, the respondent-defendants are barred by principle of res judicata in raising such objection. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the trial court cannot be sustained. 24. Otherwise also, if the trial court has found difficulty in allowing the petitioner-plaintiff to produce rebuttal evidence in respect of an issue, onus of which is saddled upon him, it can very well allow the petitioner-plaintiff to lead additional evidence because once this Court has held that the documents of the I.T. Department are relevant, those documents cannot be ignored and allowed to remain as it is. Such an action on the part of the trial court would render those documents useless and would also render the order of this Court dated 13.02.2020 as inexecutable. 25. The judgment rendered in Hemant Kumar Singhal vs. Indian Overseas Bank & Anr. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance is of little help to the respondents as the facts of that case are quite different because in the present case, this Court has held that those documents are relevant and allowed the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. 26. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. 26. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.09.2022 is set aside, however, the petitioner-plaintiff is allowed to lead evidence in respect of the issue, onus of proving whereof is saddled on him. The trial court is directed to treat the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as his application to lead additional evidence. The respondent-defendants may also be allowed to cross-examine the petitioner-plaintiff in relation to the said additional evidence. 27. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. Stay petition stands disposed of.