Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Bhargava - Appellants
Vs.
Sneha Lata Chowdhry and Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6127 of 2018
Decided On : 29-05-2019
CPC – Order 18 – Rule 3 – Plaintiff-respondent filed eviction suit against defendant-petitioner on ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, nonuser and fixation of standard rent. suit came to be allowed by learned trial court vide judgment and decree First Appeal preferred by defendant-petitioner as well as plaintiff-respondent against order of trial court and High Court vide order remanded matter back holding that entire rent determined provisionally paid and benefit of first default not examined, defendant-petitioner is that as plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right of rebuttal at time of closing his evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues for which he had already lead his evidence earlier Learned counsel for defendant-petitioner submits that learned trial court wrongly rejected application of defendant-petitioner and relies on judgment passed decided by coordinate Bench of this Court –Held, Circumstances, directing plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence in relation to new documents filed and in rebuttal to documents produced in evidence by defendant-petitioner subsequent to closing of his earlier evidence, cannot be said in any manner to be illegal or unjustified, even if Court has granted permission for examination of party at a later stage, in given case permission is nevertheless valid provided the permission is found to be on valid grounds and cannot be said to be illegality and is merely procedural irregularity, petition filed concealing facts regarding cross-examination having already conducted in rebuttal by defendant-petitioner and it is clearly case where defendant-petitioner has successful in delaying disposal of pending suit for eviction as Court stayed proceedings – Petition is dismissed. (Para 14, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff-respondent filed eviction suit against defendant-petitioner on ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, nonuser and fixation of standard rent. suit came to be allowed by learned trial court vide judgment and decree First Appeal preferred by defendant-petitioner as well as plaintiff-respondent against order of trial court and High Court vide order remanded matter back holding that entire rent determined provisionally paid and benefit of first default not examined, defendant-petitioner is that as plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right of rebuttal at time of closing his evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues for which he had already lead his evidence earlier Learned counsel for defendant-petitioner submits that learned trial court wrongly rejected application of defendant-petitioner and relies on judgment passed decided by coordinate Bench of this Court.
Findings of the court:
Circumstances, directing plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence in relation to new documents filed and in rebuttal to documents produced in evidence by defendant-petitioner subsequent to closing of his earlier evidence, cannot be said in any manner to be illegal or unjustified, even if Court has granted permission for examination of party at a later stage, in given case permission is nevertheless valid provided the permission is found to be on valid grounds and cannot be said to be illegality and is merely procedural irregularity, petition filed concealing facts regarding cross-examination having already conducted in rebuttal by defendant-petitioner and it is clearly case where defendant-petitioner has successful in delaying disposal of pending suit for eviction as Court stayed proceedings.
Result: Petition is dismissed
Key Points: - Courts may direct a plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal even after the defendant has closed evidence, provided permission is granted on valid grounds (!) (!) (!) . - The plaintiff retains the right to lead rebuttal evidence without expressly reserving the right, subject to court's discretion under the provisions (!) (!) . - Permission for a party to examine witnesses or lead evidence at a later stage is valid if based on proper grounds and does not constitute illegality, but may be a procedural irregularity (!) (!) . - A writ petition seeking to challenge such an order is maintainable only if it discloses a genuine ground; otherwise, it is liable to be dismissed (!) (!) (!) . - Granting the plaintiff an opportunity to rebut new documents filed by the defendant is inherent in civil procedure and necessary to avoid frustrating the purpose of evidence provisions (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner assails the order dated 14/02/2018 whereby the application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC has been rejected by the learned trial court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed an eviction suit against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, nonuser and fixation of standard rent. The suit came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 08/08/1995. First Appeal was preferred by the defendant-petitioner as well as the plaintiff-respondent against the order of the trial court and the High Court vide order dated 15/03/2016 remanded the matter back holding that the entire rent determined provisionally was paid and the benefit of first default was not examined. The plaintiff-respondent submitted an application for amendment in the plaint which was rejected by the learned trial court against which writ petition came to be filed and the High Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 22/11/2016 granting liberty to the plaintiff-respondent for making amendments. After amendments, the plaintiff-respondent added one ground of personal & bonafide necessity and comparative hardship. The learned trial court proceeded with the matter after amendment and the plaintiff-respondent led his evidence. The same was ordered to be closed on 13/09/2017. The learned trial court had only allowed the plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence to the extent of default and the case was directed to be listed on 19/09/2017. An application came to be filed under Section 151 CPC by the defendant-petitioner mentioning therein that as evidence had been led by the plaintiff-respondent in relation to the additional grounds allowed to have been added by the High Court by way of an amendment, the defendant-petitioner be also allowed to lead evidence in defence thereto which was allowed by the trial court. On 19/12/2017, after the evidence of the defendant-petitioner was closed, the trial court granted a date for rebuttal evidence against which an application was moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC raising objections with regard to allowing evidence in rebuttal to the plaintiff-respondent which was rejected by order impugned dated 14/02/2018. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14/02/2018, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner.
3. The submission of the defendant-petitioner is that as the plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right of rebuttal at the time of closing his evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues for which he had already lead his evidence earlier. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner and relies on the judgment passed in Jhunthi Devi Vs. Rasool Mithammed and ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15709/2012, decided by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29/10/2012.
4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has filed an application for vacation of the stay wherein facts have been mentioned by the plaintiff-respondent stating that that there has been material concealment of the facts that detailed cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff has already been conducted in rebuttal and the case was fixed for final arguments by the learned trial court and this factual position was not informed to the High Court. It is stated that the case is pending for last thirty years for eviction. It is further stated that the defendant had moved an application for placing on record 200 documents which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 29/11/2017 and in rebuttal thereto ten documents were filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was allowed and taken on record by the learned trial court
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
