The last stage for exercising the option to reserve the right of rebuttal under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC is before the other party begins its evidence.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. What is the last stage for exercising the option to reserve the right of rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the other party under O.18 R.3 is the core question in this set of five civil revisions which are before us on a reference.

2. The facts relevant to the common question aforesaid may be briefly noticed from C.R. 872 of 1982 - Jaswant Kaur V/s. Devinder Singh. The plaintiff-respondents had brought a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioners from interfering in the agricultural land in their possession. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed and the burden of proof thereof was rested respectively on the plaintiffs or the defendants. The plaintiffs who apparently had the right to begin had not concluded their evidence both in the affirmative and in rebuttal when on the 19th of May, 1981 the plaintiff counsel made a statement that he was closing his case in affirmative only. At a later stage when the plaintiffs wished to lead evidence in rebuttal, an application was preferred on behalf of the defendants praying that the plaintiffs should be disallowed from doing so because the option to reserve the right of rebuttal had not been expressly exercised at the very outset. The trial Court by a detailed order rejected the said application holding inter alia that the statement given by the plaintiffs counsel that he was closing the evidence in the affirmative had implicit therein that the right of rebuttal stood reserved.

3. This set of civil revisions first came up before my learned brother S.P. Goyal J. Before him reliance was sought to be placed on certain observations in Civil Revision No. 1406 of 1981, National Fertilizers Ltd., Bhatinda V/s. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda, decided on 26th of February, 1982 : (reported in AIR 1982 Punj and Har 432). Noticing the significance of the issue involved and expressing some doubt about the correctness of the view in National Fertilizers case (supra) the matter was referred to a larger Bench.

4. Inevitably the question herein would revolve around the specific language of R.3 of O.18 which may be read for facility of reference :-

"3. Evidence where several issues :-

Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on other party, the party beginning may at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case."

Perhaps at the very threshold it must be borne in mind that it is essentially a procedural provision that we are called upon to construe. The oft-repeated adage that the procedure is the handmaid of justice and intended to advance its course and not to obstruct the same is a sound canon of construction for provisions of this nature. Therefore a somewhat liberal interpretation as against an overly strict one is inevitably called for.

5. Again in giving a meaning to R.3 the larger purpose thereof cannot be lost sight of, nor is it to be construed in isolation from the preceding Rr.1 and 2. These provide for the right to begin in the order in which the parties are to state their case and produce evidence in support of the issues and the burden of proof whereof rests on them. When read along with these provisions it seems to be more than manifest that the real object of R.3 is to put the opposite party on its guard that the evidence it is going to lead would be challenged not only by the cross-examination of witnesses but also by positive evidence by way of rebuttal. It is in a way a notice to the opposite side of the reserved right to lead evidence again. In our jurisprudence based as it is on t