IMPORTANT POINT
Rebuttal evidence cannot be used to fill gaps in a party's evidence; it must address issues where the burden of proof lies with the other party.

ORDER :

1. Though the matters have been listed in the "Fresh" category, upon the joint request of the parties, the matters are being heard finally and disposed, today itself.

2. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.09.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Case No. 36/1996, whereby the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') filed by the petitioner-plaintiff as well as the affidavit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in rebuttal evidence, have been rejected.

3. Since both the writ petitions have been filed, laying challenge to the common impugned order dated 21.09.2024 (Annex.8), therefore, the same are being decided by this common order, however the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17729/2024 are illustratively taken.

4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17728/2024 has been preferred with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present writ petition and:-

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, District Udaipur, passed in Civil Suit No. 36/1996 State vs Uma Sangi, dated 21.09.2024 (Annex-2) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of CPC dated 11.09.2024 filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before learned Court below (Annex-1) may kindly be allowed with exemplary costs and document which sought to be placed on record, may kindly be taken on record.

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17729/2024 has been preferred with the following prayers:

“It is, therefore respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present writ petition and:-

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur, District Udaipur, passed in Civil Suit No. 36/1996 State vs Uma Sangi, dated 21.09.2024 (Annex-8) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the objection filed on behalf of the defendants-respondents (Annex-.6), may kindly be rejected with exemplary costs and in consequent thereto the affidavit submitted for tendering rebuttal evidence on behalf of the plaintiff to take on record and proceed with further in the suit.

iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, a civil suit came to be filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, praying therein that the respondents be abided by condition no. 3 (1) of the Agreement dated 26.07.1941, whereby monopoly for running the business of cinema was granted for 20 years by the Ex-Ruler of Mewar State and thereafter, the petitioner was entitled to acquire the said property under the patta dated 16.08.1941, after payment of the costs of the property. The petitioner-plaintiff also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed executed in the favour of the defendants no. 12 to 27 and subsequently, cancellation of the sale deed dated 20.05.1959 which was executed by late Shri Moti Lal Sanghi and other partners of the firm, M/s Sanghi Brothers in favour of some of the partners of the