In counter-claim scenarios, a plaintiff has the inherent right to lead rebuttal evidence after the defendant's evidence, regardless of prior explicit reservation, as per procedural rules.

ORDER :

S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to set aside the order dated 01.03.2021 passed on IA.nos.10 & 11 in Com.O.S.No.8311/2017 by the Court of LXXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Suit in Com.O.S.No.8311/2017 is filed by the petitioner herein before the jurisdictional Commercial Court at Bengaluru, seeking a decree for recovery of money.

4. Defendant no.1 has filed written statement opposing the suit claim and also has raised a counter claim for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,93,16,733/- with interest at 18% per annum from the plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff has filed separate written statement to the counter claim made by defendant no.1 as provided under Order VIII Rule 6A of CPC.

6. Based on the rival pleadings, the Commercial Court has framed Issues in the suit.

7. On the Issues in which the onus is on the plaintiff to prove the same, plaintiff had examined one witness as PW-1 and the said witness was cross-examined on behalf of the defendant. Thereafter, the defendant had examined one witness to prove the counter claim raised by him in the suit.

8. After the evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 was completed, the Trial Court had posted the case for addressing final arguments. At that stage, IA.nos.10 & 11 were filed with prayers to re-open the stage of the case and to permit the plaintiff to tender its evidence on the counter claim filed by the defendant.

9. The said applications were opposed by the defendant by filing objections.

10. The Trial Court vide the order impugned has rejected IA.nos.10 & 11 and being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff is before this Court.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the Memorandum of writ petition, submits that since there is a counter claim raised by defendant no.1, the same is required to be considered as a separate suit and after defendant has examined its witness on the counter claim raised by it, the petitioner who has filed written statement to the counter claim was required to be granted an opportunity to lead his evidence. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the applications on the ground that no liberty was reserved by the plaintiff after closing its side of evidence to lead rebuttal evidence. He submits that this approach of the Trial Court in a case where counter claim is made is not correct.

He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of NARANJAN VS AJAIB SINGH & ANOTHER - 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 225, and also on the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of SURJIT SINGH & OTHERS VS JAGTAR SINGH & OTHERS - AIR 2007 P&H 1

12. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that based on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court has framed issues in the present case, and merely for the reason that there is a counter claim made on behalf of the defendant, it cannot be said that two separate set of trial is required to be held. Even in respect of a case where counter claim is made, Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC would be applicable, and therefore, the plaintiff ought to have reserved liberty to lead rebuttal evidence after he had closed his side of evidence. He submits that if the plaintiff is allowed to lead rebuttal evidence at this stage, he would be granted an opportunity of filling up the lacuna and the same would seriously prejudice the case of the defendant. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of DEBARSHI BHATTACHARJEE VS BITHI DEY & ORS. - (2013)4 GLT 305

13. In the present case, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following Issues:

"1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that his contract was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant and he is entitled for damages as prayed?

2. Whether the Plaintiff