The court established that reopening evidence must be justified and timely, reinforcing the need for procedural integrity in legal proceedings.

ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assail the legality and validity of the order dated 06.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for brevity, 'the learned trial Court') whereby, two applications filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity, 'plaintiff') under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC as also for reopening his rebuttal evidence, have been allowed.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit in October, 2010 for specific performance of the agreement dated 28.06.1997 and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants (for brevity, 'defendants'). The defendants in their written statement filed in the year, 2011, denied execution of the agreement to sell dated 28.06.1997 in plaintiff's favour. After closure of the evidence of the parties including the rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed two applications as stated hereinabove which have been allowed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 06.11.2019, the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite recording a categorical finding that application filed by the plaintiff for reopening his rebuttal evidence could not be allowed as he wants to introduce new document in its garb, both the applications have been allowed by the learned trial Court. He submits that the plaintiff could not have been permitted to reopen the case when it was already fixed for final arguments in the garb of exhibiting the report by the handwriting expert, which was an opinion only. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 06.11.2019 be quashed and set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order impugned has been passed in the interest of justice to enable him to demolish defence of the defendants that the agreement to sell was a forged document. He submits that he filed the applications as soon as he got the report dated 25.09.2019 of the handwriting expert. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. The rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff was closed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 inasmuch as he did not want to lead it and the case was fixed for final arguments on 01.10.2019. On 01.10.2019, the plaintiff filed two applications; one for reopening his rebuttal evidence and second for taking on record the enquriy report dated 25.09.2019 furnished by the handwriting expert. A perusal of the impugned order dated 06.11.2019 reveals that while considering the application for reopening the rebuttal evidence, the learned trial Court has observed that the plaintiff was required to establish his case by affirmative evidence and the application did not deserve to be accepted as the plaintiff wanted to introduce new document in the garb of this application; however, while considering the application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC, not only the same was allowed; but, the application for reopening the rebuttal evidence was also allowed. Thus, the findings of the learned trial Court are self contradictory and mutually destructive. Even otherwise also, this Court is not satisfied from the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC that it was bonafide inasmuch as the reason assigned therein for seeking leave of the Court to place on record the report dated 25.09.2019 at the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments, was that from the crossexamination of the defendants' witnesses S/Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma and Rampal Sharma, which was completed on 02.09.2019, it transpired that defendants have refused their signature on the sale agreement dated 28.06.1997 whereas, it was specific case of the defendants in their written statement filed way back in the year 2011 that they have never executed the subject sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. No reason is ref