IMPORTANT POINT
A party in a civil suit has the right to lead rebuttal evidence on issues where the burden of proof lies on the opposing party, even if the party has the burden of proof on other issues.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Dhar, J.) :

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 13.07.2022 passed by learned Sub Judge (City Judge), Srinagar, whereby application of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) for producing evidence in rebuttal has been dismissed.

2. It appears that the plaintiff has filed a suit before the trial court seeking a decree of eviction of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the defendant) from the shop measuring 130 Sqft. situated at 224, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar. In the plaint it has been claimed by the plaintiff that she is owner of the shop in question and the same has been leased out by her to the defendant who has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement. The plaintiff has alleged a number of acts and omissions on the part of the defendant which, according to her, constitute violation of the lease agreement on the basis of which she is entitled to a decree of possession against the defendant.

3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. In his written statement, the defendant, while admitting the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, denied having violated any condition of the lease agreement and has contended that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff just to pressurize him to vacate the demised premises.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the trial court:

1. Whether the defendant has violated any of the conditions enumerated in compromise dt. 09.05.2017 submitted in the Court of Rent Control (Chief Judicial Magistrate) by the parties? ...OPP

2. Whether the defendant has occupied further 5 Sqft. of shop in addition to 125 Sqft. as agreed by the parties? ...OPP

3. Whether the defendant has sublet the shop premises in favour of any person/s in contravention of the compromise Agreement? ...OPP

4. Whether the defendant is running the same business in the shop premises which he used to run earlier before execution of compromise agreement between the parties or he has changed the nature of business? ...OPP

5. Whether the defendant is using the water tape connection for Poultry purpose without the consent of the plaintiff or the same is being used by the defendant from decades? ...OPP

6. Whether the compromise agreement dt. 09.05.2017, affirmed by 1st Additional District Judge Srinagar on 20.11.2018 is being violated by the plaintiff? ...OPP

7. Whether the compromise agreement between the parties if violated by the plaintiff is binding on the defendant or not?...OPP

8. Whether the defendant is liable to be ejected?...OPP

9. Relief:- To what relief the parties are entitled. …OPP

3. After the framing of issues, the plaintiff led her evidence and the same was closed by her in terms of order dated 21.08.2021, whereafter the defendant was asked to lead evidence in support of his case.

4. It appears that when the defendant concluded the evidence, the plaintiff made an application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby she expressed her intention to lead evidence in rebuttal by producing one witness, namely, Mehraj-ud-din. The application was objected to by the defendant by filing a reply thereto. The learned trial court after hearing the parties dismissed the application of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff has not spelled out in the application as to on which of the issues, she intends to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been further held by the trial court that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence at this stage in respect of those issues the onus of which lies on her. Accordingly, the application of the plaintiff has been dismissed and it is this order which is under challenge by way of the present petition.

5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the trial court has not interpreted the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 3 of CPC in its right perspective. It has been further contended that while closing her