The main legal point established is the interpretation of procedural rules, specifically Order 18, Rule 3, CPC, to uphold the plaintiff's right to lead evidence in rebuttal and advance justice.

1. M/s. M.S.T.C. Ltd., a Government of India undertaking and a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 69,43,692/- against M/s. Punjab Steel Corporation, Sekhri Building Shukarpura, Road, Batala, S/Shri Ashwani Kumar. Anand Kumar, Inder Kumar sons and Smt. Janaki Rani Sekhri wife of Shri Vishwamiter Sekhri and H.U.F. M/s. Vishwamiter Sekhri and sons through Shri Ashwani Kumar Sekhri as Karta, being the price of goods and interest thereon.

2. In this case, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

"(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of Rs. 69,43,6927- being the price of goods? OPP(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest under Order 7, Rule 1, CPC? OPP(iii) Whether the plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this Courts? If so, its effect? OPD (iv) Whether the defendant deposited the amount to the tune of Rs. 26,70,452.20/- in the account of the plaintiff in the books of account of the defendant? OPD(v) Whether the amount of Rs. 40,40,708/- was adjusted and a sum of Rs. 61,771.63/- is due and payable by the plaintiff to the defendants? OPD(vi) Relief."

3. Plaintiff led evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, defendants led their evidence. After the defendants had led their evidence, the plaintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal. Plaintiff sought to examine Paramjit Singh with a view to rebut the evidence led by the defendants, on the issues, the onus of which lay on them.

4. Defendants moved an application whereby they objected to the examination of Paramjit Singh in rebuttal, urging that no rebuttal evidence could be led by the plaintiff when the plaintiff had not reserved its right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time when it closed its evidence in affirmative. Vide Order dated 19-2-2001, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Batala dismissed this application and allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal.

5. Aggrieved by this Order dated 19-2-2001, defendants have come up in revision to this Court.

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

7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners (defendants) that the plaintiff could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal when it had not reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal at the time when the plaintiff made statement closing the evidence in affirmative. It was submitted that the plaintiff could be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal only if the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal at the time when it closed its evidence in affirmative. It was submitted that in this case, when the plaintiff closed its evidence in affirmative. It did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Shri B.M. Lal, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff made statement on 16-5-1998 which reads as follows :-

"I tender into evidence certificate of incorporation Ex. P3, Ex. P4 and close my evidence in affirmative."

8. It was submitted that in statement dated 16-5-1998, the plaintiff did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal, and therefore, the plaintiff, could not be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal.

9. It was submitted that in this case the onus of issue Nos.1 and 2 lay on the plaintiff while the onus of issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 lays on the defendants. Plaintiff has led evidence in affirmative on issue Nos.1 and 2. Defendants have led evidence on issue Nos.3,4 and 5. Plaintiff could lead evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendants on issue Nos.3, 4 and 5 if it had reserved its right to lead rebuttal evidence and had closed the evidence in affirmative only. It was submitted that in this case, the plaintiff did not make any such reservation while closing its evidence in affirmative and, therefore, the plaintiff could not be allowed to exercise the right given to it in Order 18, Rule 3, CPC. Order 18, Rule 3, CPC reads as follows:-

"Wh