A party's right to lead rebuttal evidence is forfeited if not reserved before the opposing party begins their evidence, as per Order 18 Rule 3 CPC.

Judgment

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for allowing her to lead further evidence after framing additional issue No.1-A, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present revision petition are that petitioner along with her mother filed a suit for declaration to the effect that alleged transfer deed dated 13.03.2009 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1-respondent is null and void and is a result of fraud and undue influence having no effect on the rights of the plaintiffs and is liable to be set aside and the plaintiffs are entitled to 50% share in House No.2351, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh, and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No.1-respondent from alienating, transferring in any manner, to any person, the House No.2351, Sector 44-C, Chandigarh, and for restraining the defendant from forcible, illegally dispossessing and interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs of the said house. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff No.2 – Prem Lata and defendant No.2 – Hari Singh i.e. mother and father of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 died and their names were deleted from the array of parties. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues. On 11.11.2022, plaintiff-petitioner filed an application for framing of additional issue No.1-A. The application was allowed vide order dated 11.11.2022 and following additional issue No.1-A was framed by the Court:-

“Whether the transfer deed dated 09.03.2009 is legal and valid: OPD1”

On an application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 14 Rules 1, 3 and 5 read with Section 151 CPC for recasting of additional issue No.1-A, date of transfer deed in the additional issue No.1-A was corrected to 13.03.2009. On 21.11.2022 defendant-respondent examined himself as DW7 and witness of the transfer deed dated 13.03.2009 Mukesh Kundra, Advocate as DW8. On 05.01.2023 defendant-respondent closed his evidence and on the same date plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC for rebuttal evidence. Defendant-respondent filed reply to the said application. Vide impugned order dated 13.01.2023 the trial Court dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application of the petitioner to lead rebuttal evidence on issue No.1. He further contended that petitioner never made any statement after framing of additional issue that she did not want to lead any evidence. He further contended that both the parties have legal right to produce their respective evidence on the said additional issue. He further contended that curtailing rights of the petitioner to lead further evidence after framing of additional issue is totally illegal and against the principles of natural justice. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Chand and others v. Board of Revenue U.P. and others , 2008(10) SCC 533 and judgments of this Court in Budh Singh v. Mohinder Kaur and others , 2018(5) R.C.R. (Civil) 779; Dharam Singh v. Labh Singh and others 2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2257 and Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur Bedi v. Paramjit Singh Sawhney and others , 201