( 1 ) THROUGH this petition the impugned order dated 7th October, 2003, passed by the learned ASJ, whereby the application of the petitioner/plaintiff to produce the evidence in rebuttal was declined has been challenged. So far as the right of the plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal after the closure of the evidence of defendants on the issues onus of which was on the defendant is concerned this right is vested in the plaintiff by virtue of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, which reads as under:-

"3. Evidence where several issues---Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other 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. "

( 2 ) THE perusal of the impugned order shows that the application of the petitioner for exercising this right was dismissed mainly on the ground that the application has been moved after two months of the closure of the evidence by the defendant. According to the learned ADJ the plaintiff was required to move such an application on that very day when the evidence was closed by the defendant. I am afraid such a view is highly untenable and difficult to accept as for belated application the plaintiff could have been burdened with the cost as it is for such eventuality that cost is deemed as panacea. Rejection of a right of a person to produce evidence in rebuttal on account of delayed application is negation of the right itself. To deny this right on its belated exercise is not only infraction of a legal right but also amounts to defeating the interests of justice.

( 3 ) IT appears that the zealousness of the learned ADJ to dispose of the matter expeditiously has resulted in counter production inasmuch as that the disposal of the case has been delayed for about 8 months or so because of the pendency of this petition challenging the impugned.

( 4 ) IN the instant case the defendant closed the evidence on 27th May, 2003 and the case was posted for final arguments on 2nd August, 2003. It was in the intervening period that the plaintiff moved the application for producing the evidence in rebuttal. The proper course was to allow the application as it was moved before the final arguments could be heard not only in the interest of justice but also for expeditious disposal of the case as dismissal of such an application gives rise to revision or petition before the higher court which at times takes inordinately long time and the very purpose and object of disposing the matter expeditiously stands defeated.

( 5 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to allow the plaintiff to produce the evidence in rebuttal on the date convenient to the court.