1. The 1st defendant in a suit for partition has come up with the above revision, challenging an order passed by the trial Court allowing an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 permitting the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence on Issue No.1 after the completion of the defence evidence.

2. Heard Mr. M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Narendra Raj, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff.

3. The 1st respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Vijayawada for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. The claim of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in his plaint was that he was the son of the petitioner/1st defendant herein through his first wife; that after the death of the 1st respondent/plaintiffs mother, the petitioner/1st defendant married another lady and in the said wedlock, the 2nd respondent herein (2nd defendant in the suit) was born; that the property described in plaint ‘A’ schedule was allotted to the share of the petitioner/1st defendant in a partition that took place between the petitioner and his two brothers; th