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. 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 whene