Dev Darshan Sud, J.

This petition has been preferred by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting permission to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

2. The order notes that the case was listed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff when counsel tendered three affidavits of witnesses; namely; Nonihal Singh, Bahadur Singh and Krishan Dutt. Three other witnesses were also present; namely; Sh.Suraj Prakash, Sh.Ramesh Chand and Sh.Aditya Mahajan. At this stage, it was submitted by the counsel for defendant Shri V.G. Jauhar that he does not intend to press issue No.8 with respect to adverse possession. The defendant raised an objection with respect to the relevance of the affidavits. The Court holds that with respect to this objection, it was well founded. The Court notes that in CMPMO No.148 of 2011, this Court had issued specific directions regarding the manner in which the plaintiff’s evidence was to be recorded in the trial stage. The plaintiff was directed to be granted only two opportunities to produce witnesses. The Court then proceeds that the evidence to be led in rebuttal is a ruse to adduce further evidence on these very issues.