Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 10th Feb., 1999.

(2). This Court admitted the revision petition on 12.05.2000 on the plea raised by the petitioner that whether in case the plaintiff already led evidence in the first instance itself on the issues burden whereof was upon the defendant, can be led evidence in rebuttal again.

(3). The trial court in its order dated 10th Feb., 1999 observed that the plaintiff led evidence only on issues No. 3 & 4, burden of which was upon the plaintiff and also observed that the plaintiff while disclosing the evidence, kept the right of rebuttal reserved in the presence of the counsel for the defendant, which was never objected by the defendant and therefore, the trial court permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

(4). Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the plaintiff led full evidence on the issue of which burden was upon the defendant and therefore, legally under under 18 Rule 3 CPC, he was not entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal after the evidence of the defendant. It is also submitted that mere reserving right of rebuttal itself cannot give any right to lead evidence in rebuttal unless this legal right is available to the plaintiff in accordance with law. It is also submitted that this court had occasioned to examine this aspect of the matter and there was one controversy about the stage at which the other party be made aware about the intention of the plaintiff that plaintiff will lead evidence in rebuttal. In addition to that, there was controversy whether the plaintiff can lead evidence on the issue, which the plaintiff has touched in has evidence in beginning on the issue of which burden was upon the defendant and in all those cases, which Court has consistently taken a view that the right to lead evidence in rebuttal is available to the plaintiff only when the plaintiff has not led any evidence in beginning. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of this Court delivered in the cases of Kalyan Dass vs. Kishan Karan (1), (1977 WLN (UC) 55) (2), (AIR 1970 (Raj.) 278) (3) & Aranya Kumar Panda vs. Chintamani Panda (4).

(5). So far as the point in controversy involved in the dispute is more with respect to whether the plaintiff led any evidence on the issue of which burden to prove was on the defendant.

(6). In this case, record was called. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to demonstrate by reading the evidence of the plaintiff and evidence led in rebuttal to show that the plaintiff has already led evidence on the issue in beginning therefore, he cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial court went wrong in permitting the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

(7). It will be worthwhile to mention here that the trial court framed total six issues and burden to prove two issues was upon the plaintiff, which are (i) whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the suit and another is (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of rendition of account against the defendant. A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaintiff and particularly the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, it is clear that the entire relief of the plaintiff is only that the plaintiff is entitled for the decree for rendition of account against the defendant and consequently, the plaintiff is entitled for the amount, which is found due in the defendant of the plaintiff. This issue covers the entire suit itself, which includes all the facts mentioned in plaint on the basis of which plaintiff becomes entitle to relief. It appears from the detail evidence of the plaintiff that the plaintiff led evidence in detail to prove this issue and in that sequence he narrated the entire sequence on the basis of which the plaintiff is claiming the relief against the defendant. When such a situation arises where there are two sets of issues, one putting burden upon the plaintiff to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document