ORDER : 1. Though the matters have been listed in the "Fresh" category, upon the joint request of the parties, the matters are being heard finally and disposed, today itself. 2. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Case No. 36/1996, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as well as the affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in rebuttal evidence, have been rejected. 3. Since both the writ petitions have been filed, laying challenge to the common impugned order dated 21.09.2024 (Annex.8), therefore, the same are being decided by this common order, however the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17729/2024 are illustratively taken. 4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17728/2024 has been preferred with the following prayers: “It is, therefore respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present writ petition and:- i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, District Udaipur, passed in Civil Suit No. 36/1996 State vs Uma Sangi, dated 21.09.2024 (Annex-2) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC dated 11.09.2024 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before learned Court below (Annex-1) may kindly be allowed with exemplary costs and document which sought to be placed on record, may kindly be taken on record. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17729/2024 has been preferred with the following prayers: “It is, therefore respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present writ petition and:- i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, District Udaipur, passed in Civil Suit No. 36/1996 State vs Uma Sangi, dated 21.09.2024 (Annex-8) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside. ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the objection filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents (Annex-.6), may kindly be rejected with exemplary costs and in consequent thereto the affidavit submitted for tendering rebuttal evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to take on record and proceed with further in the suit. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.” 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, a civil suit came to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying therein that the respondents be abided by condition no. 3 (1) of the Agreement dated 26.07.1941, whereby monopoly for running the business of cinema was granted for 20 years by the Ex-Ruler of Mewar State and thereafter, the petitioner was entitled to acquire the said property under the patta dated 16.08.1941, after payment of the costs of the property. The petitioner-plaintiff also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the favour of the defendants no. 12 to 27 and subsequently, cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.05.1959 which was executed by late Shri Moti Lal Sanghi and other partners of the firm, M/s Sanghi Brothers in favour of some of the partners of the firm, M/s Rajasthan Theatres, was also sought. In response to the plaint, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. In response to the plaint, the respondents/defendants filed their written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. Learned Trial Court thereafter, framed 28 issues, wherein the burden of proving issues no. 1 to 13 was upon the petitioner-plaintiff and the burden of proof for the issues no. 14 to 27 was upon the respondents/defendants. 6. On behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff, Shri Sanjay Kumar, Additional District Collector cum Executive Magistrate, Udaipur submited his affidavit dated 27.03.2019 for examination in chief as P.W.1 and the cross-examination of PW1 was conducted by the respondents/defendants on 20.08.2019, 05.10.2019, 11.10.2019, 16.10.2019, 10.08.2021 and 02.09.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking permission to allow to the petitioner-plaintiff to tender rebuttal evidence. 7. In response to the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, the respondents/defendants submitted their reply and vide order dated 29.03.2022 (Annex.1), learned Trial Court allowed the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the CPC. Aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2022 (Annex.1), the respondents/defendants preferred a writ petition before this Court wherein notices were issued by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023 and subsequently the respondents/defendants filed an affidavit in support of the chief examination on 14.07.2023 as DW1. The cross-examination of DW1 was conducted on 16.12.2023 and on 26.03.2024, the cross-examination was completed while recording the statement of DW1 and the evidence of the respondents/defendants was closed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 29.04.2024. 8. In the meanwhile, since the learned Trial Court did not consider the rebuttal evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff, which was allowed vide order dated 29.03.2022 (Annex.1), the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application on 03.08.2024 for tendering rebuttal evidence. In response, the respondents/defendants filed their reply to the said application on the same day and thereafter, the learned Trial Court on 08.08.2024 (Annex.3) rejected the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for seeking permission to tender rebuttal evidence. 9. In response, the respondents/defendants filed their reply to the said application on the same day and thereafter, the learned Trial Court on 08.08.2024 (Annex.3) rejected the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for seeking permission to tender rebuttal evidence. 9. Thus, being aggrieved of the order dated 08.08.2024 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred a writ petition before this Court which was disposed of by this Court on 22.08.2024 (Annex.4) with the direction to the petitioner plaintiff to file the affidavits of all the witnesses, it seeks to produce in rebuttal evidence, on the next date as fixed by the learned Court. In pursuance of the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annex.4), the petitioner-plaintiff submitted an affidavit in support of the rebuttal evidence on 31.08.2024 (Annex.5), against which the respondents/defendants filed their objection on 05.09.2024 (Annex.6). 10. On 11.09.2024, the petitioner-plaintiff filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC to take on record the Gazette Notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024). The application under Order VII Rule 14(3) along with the application to tender the rebuttal evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff came to be rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.09.2024 (Annex.8). 11. Thus, being aggrieved of the order dated 21.09.2024 (Annex.8) passed by the learned Trial Court, rejecting the petitioner-plaintiff to tender rebuttal evidence as well as application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present writ petitions. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits that learned Trial Court has erred in rejecting the application for taking the Gazette Notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024) on record, inasmuch as the Gazette Notification forms the basis of the suit and its availability on the record is essential for the just and effective disposal of the controversy involved in the suit. She further submits that by way of tendering the Gazette Notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024), no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/defedants as they would still have the right to contest the same before the learned Trial Court. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff further submits that by way of filing the affidavit (Annex.5), the petitioner-plaintiff has raised new facts which are based on the issues no. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff further submits that by way of filing the affidavit (Annex.5), the petitioner-plaintiff has raised new facts which are based on the issues no. 14 to 27, as framed by the learned Trial Court and the onus to prove the said issues was upon the respondents/defendants, and thus, the facts stated by the petitioner-plaintiff in the affidavit (Annex.5) are new facts and thus, the learned Trial Court erred in rejecting the affidavit (Annex.5) filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence on the ground that no new facts have been raised and only an improvised version of the facts stated earlier, have been mentioned. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submits that the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14(3) to take on record the Gazette Notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024), inasmuch as it is a public document which can be relied upon by the petitioner-plaintiff, which need not be specifically produced by the petitioner-plaintiff, in evidence insamuch as this forms a part of facts that are judicially noticeable and need not be proved under Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1876. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants also submits that learned Trial Court has not erred in rejecting the affidavit (Annex.5) filed by the Petitioner-plaintiff in rebuttal evidence inasmuch as firstly, the petitioner-plaintiff did not specify as to what rebuttal had been tendered against which evidence; and secondly, they have not raised any new facts and have merely improvised their case by way of filing the affidavit to tender rebuttal evidence, which is against the basic premise of Order XVIII Rule 3 of the CPC. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants also places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur, in the case of Premchand v. Suganchand, [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6990/2022, decided on 17.05.2022], wherein this Court had categorically observed that Order XVIII Rule 3 of the CPC permits a party to lead evidence in rebuttal by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party only on those issues, wherein the burden of proof lies upon the other party, and in the garb of rebuttal evidence, the party cannot be permitted to fill in the lacuna in his evidence. He thus submits that, keeping in mind the purpose of Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC, as highlighted by this Court in the case of Premchand (supra), the learned Trial Court has rightly rejected the affidavit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. 17. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused material available on record and judgment cited at the Bar. 18.1. This Court, with respect to S.B. CW 17729/2024, finds that the petitioner-plaintiff produced affidavit (Annex.5) to tender rebuttal evidence however, the learned trial court has rejected the same. The learned trial court has noted that the burden to prove issue no.1 to 13 was upon the petitioner-plaintiff whereas the burden to prove issue no.14 to 27 was upon the respondents-defendants. The learned trial court has observed that the petitioner-plaintiff ought to have explained in the affidavit as to what are the fresh facts in respect to which the petitioner-plaintiff has not got the opportunity to present evidence but the petitioner-plaintiff has instead termed all the facts mentioned in the affidavit as fresh, however, learned trial court, upon perusal of the affidavit (Annex.5), gave a finding that the petitioner-plaintiff has just presented the evidences in a different manner which were already available on record and it also failed to explain the same during the course of oral arguments. The learned trial court further noted that the facts mentioned in paragraph no.1 to 8 of the affidavit (Annex.5) have already come on record so as the evidence in respect of them; also some of the facts therein are not even part of the plaint itself. 18.2. The learned trial court also noted that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to point out such facts before the learned trial court in respect of which the petitioner-plaintiff has not got the opportunity to lead/present evidence. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has termed all the facts contained in the affidavit (Annex.5) as fresh facts instead of pointing out as to which are the fresh facts in respect of which it wants to lead rebuttal evidence and to what extent. The learned trial court also noted that the facts mentioned in the affidavit (Annex.5) are based on the issues, the burden of proof of which lies upon the petitioner-plaintiff itself and some of the facts are not even part of the plaint itself. The learned trial court also noted that the facts mentioned in the affidavit (Annex.5) are based on the issues, the burden of proof of which lies upon the petitioner-plaintiff itself and some of the facts are not even part of the plaint itself. Thus, after taking into consideration paragraph 11 of the order dated 22.08.2024 (Annex.4) passed in S.B.CW No. 13980/2024 the learned trial court has observed that the affidavit (Annex.5), which is presented to tender rebuttal evidence, deserves to be rejected on the grounds that the facts which are presented through the affidavit (Annex.5) do not form a part of the plaint, also, the facts that are presented in respect of the evidences, have already come on record in the plaint and it was further observed by the learned trial court that the petitioner-plaintiff has presented the facts through the affidavit (Annex.5) qua those issues, the burden of proof of which lies upon the petitioner-plaintiff itself and that the petitioner-plaintiff has also failed in categorzing them seperately, therefore, on account of the aforesaid infirmities, the learned trial court rejected the affidavit (Annex.5). 18.3. Thus, it is clear from the material available on record that the petitioner is trying to improve the evidence given by it earlier and the same is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the coordinate bench of this court in Premchand v. Suganchand [S.B.CW 6990/2022] wherein the court while dealing with a similar issue has held as under: “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 flead 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. Since, burden of proof on issue no.2 only was upon the defendant, it was permissible for the petitioner to flead 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. 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.” 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.” Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff in the garb of rebuttal evidence cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna left in the evidence earlier led by it, but can only give rebuttal evidence qua the issue(s), the burden of proof of which lies upon the respondents/defendants. 18.3.Thus, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the material available before it, has rightly observed that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to point out as to what are the fresh facts in respect of which the petitioner-plaintiff wants to lead rebuttal evidence and to what extent. Also, the learned trial court has rightly noted that the facts mentioned in the affidavit (Annex.5) are based on the issues, the burden of proof of which lies upon the petitioner-plaintiff itself and some of the facts contained in the affidavit (Annex.5) are not even part of the plaint itself. Also, the learned trial court has rightly noted that the facts mentioned in the affidavit (Annex.5) are based on the issues, the burden of proof of which lies upon the petitioner-plaintiff itself and some of the facts contained in the affidavit (Annex.5) are not even part of the plaint itself. The relevant discussion made by the learned Trial Court reads as under: - ^^---- ,slh fLFkfr esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ,l-ch-flfoy fjV isfV'ku ua-13980@2024 ds iSjk la- 11 ,oa izfroknh }kjk fjfcVy lk{; ij dh xbZ vkifRr;ksa dks lfEefyr :i ls n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s rFkk oknh }kjk izLrqr 'kiFk i= esa nkos ds Hkkx u gksus okys rF;] iwoZ esa vk pqdh lk{; ij iqu% 'kiFk i= ds ek/;e ls izLrqr rF;ksa] oknh ds ftEes rufd;kr ij rF; dks lfEefyr :i ls u;s rF;ksa ds ek/;e ls 'kiFk i= ds tfj;s izLrqr djuk rFkk mUgsa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls oxhZd`r u dj ikus ds vk/kkj ij bl Lrj ij izkFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k i{k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= rjnhnh lk{; ds :i esa izLrqr 'kiFk i= ds izfr vkifRr ckcr fnukafdr 05-09-2024 dks Lohdkj fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= rjnhnh lk{; ds :i esa izLrqr 'kiFk i= ds izfr vkifRr ckcr fnukafdr 05-09-2024 Lohdkj fd;k tkdj oknh }kjk lk{; oknh ds leFkZu esa izLrqr 'kiFk i= ds laca/k esa vuqefr u nh tkdj ¼fjfcVy lk{; ds Lrj ij½ vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 18.4. Therefore, the learned Trial Court, after taking into consideration the material available before it, has rightly allowed the objections of the respondents-defendants (Annex.6) and rejected the affidavit (Annex.5) filed by the petitioner-plaintiff to tender rebuttal evidence. 19. This court with respect to S.B. CW No.17728/2024 finds that petitioner-plaintiff has filed application under Order VII Rule 14 (3), CPC to bring on record Gazette notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024) however, the learned trial court has rejected the same, while exercising its discretion which is provided under order VII Rule 14(3), CPC, on the ground that under section 57 of the evidence act, the court has to take judicial notice of the same. Section 57 is reproduced as under: “57. Section 57 is reproduced as under: “57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice.–– The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts: –– (1) All laws in force in the territory of India; (2) All public Acts passed or hereafter to be passed by Parliament 1 [of the United Kingdom], and all local and personal Acts directed by Parliament [of the United Kingdom] to be judicially noticed; (3) Articles of War for the Indian] Army Navy or Air Force [(4) The course of proceeding of Parliament of the United Kingdom, of the Constituent Assembly of India, of Parliament and of the legislatures established under any laws for the time being in force in a Province or in the States (5) The accession and the sign manual of the Sovereign for the time being of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; (6) All seals of which English Courts take judicial notice: the seals of all the Courts in India and of all Courts out of 6[India] established by the authority of [the Central Government or the Crown Representative]; the seals of Courts of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction and of Notaries Public, and all seals which any person is authorised to use by 8 [the Constitution or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom or an] Act or Regulation having the force of law in [India]; (7) The accession to office, names, titles, functions, and signatures of the persons filling for the time being any public office in any State, if the fact of their appointment to such office is notified in [any Official Gazette]; (8) The existence, title and national flag of every State or Sovereign recognised by 10[the Government of India]; (9) The divisions of time, the geographical divisions of the world, and public festivals, fasts and holidays notified in the Official Gazette; (10) The territories under the dominion of 10[the Government of India]; (11) The commencement, continuance and termination of hostilities between the Government of India and any other State or body of persons; (12) The names of the members and officers of the Court, and of their deputies and subordinate officers and assistants, and also of all officers acting in execution of its process, and of all advocates, attorneys, proctors, vakils, pleaders and other persons authorised by law to appear or act before it; (13) The rule of the road on land or at sea]. In all these cases and also on all matters of public history, literature, science or art, the Court may resort for its aid to appropriate books or documents of reference. If the Court is called upon by any person to take judicial notice of any fact, it may refuse to do so unless and until such person produces any such book or document as it may consider necessary to enable it to do so.” Thus, it is clear from bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that the learned trial court has to take judicial notice of said Gazette notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024). Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly taken into account the fact that the Gazette Notification dated 30.04.1948 (Annex.1 of SBCWP No. 17728/2024) is judicially noticeable by the Court under Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1876 and there is no need to bring the same on record by way of filing the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3), CPC. Therefore, interference of this court is not called for with respect to finding of the learned trial court in this regard as well. 21. Accordingly, in view of the above, both the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-plaintiff are dismissed. Any application(s), if pending, shall also stand disposed of. No order as to the cost.