1. Challenge to interlocutory order permitting rebuttal evidence confined to partition deed in partition suit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 483
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Mukesh Rajpurohit, J.
Shri Gordhandas S/o Late Shri Shubhkaran - Petitioner
Versus
Subhashchandra S/o Late Shri Chetramji - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21024 of 2025
Decided On : 18-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Virendra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. S.L. Jain
For the Petitioner: Mr. Virendra Acharya
For the Respondent: Mr. S.L. Jain
Rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC is not restricted to formally framed issues but allows a party to counter evidence or material documents introduced by the opponent during the trial, ensuring a fair trial and procedural balance.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 3 and Section 151 - Constitution of India - Article 227 - Rebuttal evidence - Scope and admissibility - Where a party has reserved the right to lead rebuttal evidence, such right cannot be denied if a material document is produced during the course of evidence that goes to the root of the controversy - Rebuttal evidence is not confined to issues formally burdened upon the defendant but extends to evidence led by the defendant which directly impacts the plaintiff’s claim; it is essentially a right to answer or counter the case set up in defense (Para 16) - Distinction between "filling a lacuna" and "meeting a case subsequently introduced": where a material document is brought on record at a later stage by the opposite party, providing an opportunity to rebut the same is not an attempt to fill a lacuna, as the occasion to meet such evidence arises only thereafter (Para 19) - Cross-examination and rebuttal operate in different spheres; while the former tests the veracity of existing evidence, the latter enables a party to lead affirmative material to dislodge the opponent’s case (Para 18).
(B) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Scope of interference - Interference is warranted only in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice - High Court does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate discretionary or procedural orders passed by the trial court unless such orders suffer from jurisdictional error (Para 24).
Facts of the case:
A civil suit for partition and possession was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant contested the suit, asserting that a prior partition had occurred and produced a partition deed during the course of the trial. The plaintiff, having reserved the right to lead rebuttal evidence during the closing of affirmative evidence, applied to the trial court to adduce rebuttal evidence specifically regarding the said partition deed. The trial court partly allowed the application, granting a limited opportunity for rebuttal evidence while restricting its scope. This order was challenged by the defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
The trial court exercised its discretion in a judicious and balanced manner by restricting the rebuttal evidence to the specific document produced during the trial. The court found that the right to rebuttal is necessary to ensure a fair trial when a material document is introduced at the evidence stage, and the order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity.
Issues: Whether rebuttal evidence can be permitted in the absence of a specific issue framed against the defendant and whether the introduction of a material document during the evidence stage justifies the permission for rebuttal evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the right to lead rebuttal evidence is not limited to issues formally framed against the defendant but includes the right to counter any evidence led by the defendant that impacts the plaintiff's claim. If a material document is introduced during the trial rather than at the pleading stage, the opposite party must be permitted to rebut it to prevent prejudice and ensure a fair trial. Such permission does not constitute "filling a lacuna" but is a procedural necessity to meet subsequent evidence.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
- civil procedure
- writ jurisdiction
- evidence
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued rebuttal evidence impermissible without specific issue; respondent contended document introduced late, right reserved. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 )
3. Right of rebuttal reserved; document goes to root of controversy; trial court balanced discretion restricting scope to specific deed. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Rebuttal evidence not confined to issues with onus on defendant; extends to evidence impacting plaintiff's claim for fair trial. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Writ petition dismissed; no jurisdictional error in order permitting rebuttal evidence on partition deed with safeguards. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
6. Is rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC limited to issues with onus on the defendant?
No. The right extends to evidence led by the defendant that directly impacts the plaintiff's claim, not only to formally burdened issues. (Para 16 )
7. Can rebuttal evidence be permitted if the document in question was already confronted during cross-examination?
Yes. Cross-examination tests veracity; rebuttal enables leading affirmative material to dislodge the opponent's case. (Para 18 )
8. Does reserving the right to lead rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC affect a party's entitlement to do so?
Yes. Once the right stands reserved, a party cannot be non-suited from exercising it, subject to judicial control on scope and relevance. (Para 15 )
9. When can rebuttal evidence be allowed without being considered an impermissible attempt to fill lacunae?
When a material document is brought on record at a later stage by the opposite party, rebuttal meets a case subsequently introduced. (Para 19 )
10. What is the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution for procedural or discretionary orders?
Interference is warranted only for patent lack of jurisdiction, manifest perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice, not as appellate review. (Para 24 )
ORDER :
MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.
1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner–defendant has challenged the order dated 30.08.2025 (Annx.9) passed by the Judge, Family Court, Churu in Civil Regular Suit No. 61/2017 (Subhash Chandra vs. Gordhandas & Ors.), whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been partly allowed to the extent of granting one opportunity to respondent No.1–plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence in respect of the partition deed (Ex.A/1).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for partition and possession of land situated at Churu, claiming 1/18th share as a legal heir of Late Jainarayanji and challenging the relinquish deed dated 03.08.2006. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit, asserting that a prior partition had already taken place in Samvat Year 2013 and that the suit was false and motivated. Though, issues were framed on 28.08.2024 and 25.09.2024, no specific issue was framed against the petitioner. The plaintiff’s evidence, including cross-examination, stood concluded in November 2024, wherein the partition deed was also examined. Subsequently, a rebuttal affidavit was filed by the plaintiff, which, despite opposition, was partly allowed by the trial court vide order dated 30.08.2025.
4. It is contended that rebuttal evidence can be permitted only in relation to issues duly framed; in the absence of any issue concerning the petitioner, the rebuttal affidavit is unjustified and merely an attempt to cure defects in the plaintiff’s case.
5. It is further urged that the partition deed (Ex.A/1) had already been confronted and examined during cross-examination of the plaintiff; thus, permitting rebuttal evidence thereafter is contrary to settled procedural principles and prejudicial to the petitioner.
6. It is also argued that rebuttal evidence is admissible only when new facts emerge during trial; since no such new material has arisen, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Order XVIII Rule 3 of C.P.C., once evidence is closed without reserving the right of rebuttal, such right stands extinguished; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence.
8. It is additionally contended that photocopy of partition deed was already on record and only the original was produced during evidence; hence, permitting rebuttal on this ground reflects non-application of mind by the trial court.
9. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra & Ors. vs. Additional District Judge & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2006) decided on 15.09.2009 and a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in V. Maheswari & Ors. vs. S. Bhaskarachari & Ors. (Civil Revision Petition No. 2734/2022) decided on 12.03.2024
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition, submitting that no jurisdictional error has been demonstrated and that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. It is further contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, particularly the filing of replication, wherein it was specifically pleaded that partition of Samvat 2013 in writing was not produced on record and any such document, if now produced, would be fabricated.
11. It is further submitted that the partition deed (Ex.1A) was introduced belatedly after completion of cross-examination; therefore, the trial court rightly permitted rebuttal evidence. The document is also stated to be inadmissible for want of proper stamping and registration. It is argued that the matter involves mixed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that the trial court
