JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Omkar Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. Jose Manuel Reis learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, the contesting Respondent. The remaining Respondents are served. Some of the remaining Respondents are not even the contesting Respondents.

2. Accordingly, Rule is issued in this Petition and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The challenge in this Petition is to the orders dated 13.08.2019, 16.12.2019, and 29.01.2020 made by the learned Trial Judge.

4. By the order dated 13.08.2019, the learned Trial Judge only partly allowed the Petitioners-Plaintiffs' application at exhibit 70. The learned Trial Judge held that the Plaintiffs will have to lead evidence, to begin with on the issues where the burden was cast on the Plaintiffs. However, issues where the burden was cast on the Defendants who had raised the plea of adverse possession, it is the said Defendants that will have to lead evidence first and, thereafter, the Plaintiffs would be allowed to rebut.

5. The Petitioners-Plaintiffs instead of complying with the directions with the order dated 13.08.2019, gave a praecipe that they do not wish to lead any evidence. The Defendants who had raised the plea of adverse possession also, thereupon, gave a praecipe that they too do not wish to lead any evidence.

6. At this stage, the Petitioners-Plaintiffs applied for leave to lead evidence in rebuttal. This application was quite correctly rejected by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 16.12.2019 and the matter was posted for final arguments.

7. The Petitioners-Plaintiffs' application to postpone the final arguments because the Petitioners were in the process of instituting the present Petition, was dismissed by order dated 29.01.2020.

8. Therefore, all the aforesaid three orders have been challenged by the Petitioners by instituting the present Petition.

9. Now, Mr. Reis, the learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, is quite right in his submission that it is the Petitioners-Plaintiffs who should have led the evidence first on the issues where the burden was expressly cast upon the Petitioners-Plaintiffs. Having failed to do so, the Petitioners-Plaintiffs have missed the bus and there was no question of seeking any leave to lead any evidence in rebuttal because none of the Defendants had led any evidence in the matter.

10. The Petitioners, in this case, should have followed the course set out in the order dated 13.08.2019. However, it was pointed out by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel, that Petitioners were improperly advised and genuinely expected the Defendants to lead evidence so that the Petitioners could get an opportunity of rebuttal.

11. According to me, Mr. Kulkarni's submission, in the peculiar facts of the present case, deserves acceptance. The Petitioners, in all probabilities, expected that they would get an opportunity of rebuttal because some of the Defendants had raised the plea of adverse possession. Normally, Implicit in such a plea, is the acknowledgment of the Plaintiffs' ownership.

12. Mr. Reis, however, clarifies that the plea of adverse possession had been taken as a matter of abundant caution. He submits that, to begin with, the Defendants have denied the title of the Plaintiffs. He also submits that in previous litigation, this issue has been already settled.

13. According to me, this is a case where the Petitioners appear to have been ill-advised and now are at an extremely disadvantageous position in the matter. No doubt, the Petitioners should thank themselves or maybe their advisors for placing them in such a situation. In all this appears to be an error of judgment on part of the plaintiffs and for this error, the Plaintiffs cannot be made to suffer disproportionately.

14. Mr. Kulkarni submits that, in the interest of justice, at least, the Petitioners should now be allowed to lead evidence on the issues on which the burden was cast upon them. He submits t