The main legal point established is that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence in rebuttal on issues where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 24-1-2002 passed by the trial Court dismissing the application of the plaintiff for permission to produce evidence in rebuttal, in order to rebut the evidence led by the defendants.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was not liable to pay the arrears of market fees and as such the notice of demand of the said arrears was against law and facts and was liable to be set aside. By way of consequential relief, decree of permanent injunction was sought, restraining the defendants from recovering said arrears from the plaintiff. The said suit was contested by the defendants. Learned trial Court framed various issues. The plaintiff led his evidence. Thereafter, defendants led their evidence. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application for permission to adduce evidence in rebuttal, on the allegations that during evidence led by the defendants, a copy of voters list had been produced which created ambiguity regarding the age of the plaintiff and, therefore, it had become necessary to rebut this assertion of the defendants and to contradict the age of the plaintiff, it was requested that the father of the plaintiff be allowed to be examined in rebuttal to depose about the correctness and veracity of statement of DW 2, with regard to the age of plaintiff, Said application of the plaintiff was contested by the defendants. It was alleged that since plaintiff had already closed his evidence in affirmative, he was not permitted under law to produce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendants. Learned trial Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the record, dismissed the said application of the plaintiff vide order dated 24-1-2002, Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.

3. Notice of motion was issued.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

5. In the present case the plaintiff wanted to produce evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendants, in respect of the issue, the burden of which was on the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff had led his evidence in affirmative to prove the said issue. Thereafter, defendants produced their evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the plaintiff on the said issue. After the defendants had closed their evidence, the plaintiff wanted to produce his father, in rebuttal, in order to rebut the evidence led by the defendants on the issue, the burden of which was on the plaintiff. The trial Court did not allow the plaintiff to produce evidence in order to rebut the evidence led by the defendants. While doing so, the learned trial Court had placed reliance on the law laid down by this Court, in the cases reported as Chakkar Pani V/s. Onkar Nath, 1996 (2) Civil Court Gas 715; Joginder Singh v, Baru Mal, 1990 (2) SLJ 775; and Gurnam Singh v. Jit Singh, 1999 (2) Civ Court Cas 583 (P & H).

6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner submitted before me that in view of the law laid down by this Court, in the case reported as M/s. Punjab Steel Corporation, Batalav. M.S.T.C. Limited, Calcutta, 2000 (1) Pun LR 99 : (AIR 2001- Punj & Har 331), plaintiff was entitled to produce the evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendants even in respect of issues the onus of which on the plaintiff. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants respondents submitted before me that the plaintiff was not entitled to produce evidence to rebut the evidence led by the defendants, in respect of those issues, in view of the specific law laid down by this Court in the authorities , referred to above.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record. I find no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff petitioner. In Swaran Singh V/s. Bhagwan Singh, 1999 (123) Pun LR 789, it was held by this Court that there is no right with