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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document