Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
SUVIR SEHGAL
Rajinder Pal – Appellant
Versus
Bal Krishan (Now Deceased) Through Lrs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Suvir Sehgal, J.
1. Aggrieved of order dated 18.07.2023, Annexure P-7, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application, Annexure P-5, for permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, has been declined, petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition.
2. Ms. Shivya Sehgal, counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short '1963 Act') has been filed by the petitioner for possession of a plot and upon being served, it is contested by the defendants. Counsel asserts that after both the parties concluded their evidence, plaintiff filed an application on 24.05.2023, Annexure P-5, to produce evidence in rebuttal on issues the onus of which was on the defendants. While making a reference to the application, Annexure P-5, she states that the plaintiff intends to produce four witnesses and record of the previous litigation between the parties. She contends that the Trial Court has erred in denying the right to lead rebuttal evidence as onus of proving some issues was on the defendants. She has placed reliance upon Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and ot
A plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on a defendant, and must reserve the right to do so when his evidence is closed.
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.
The plaintiff cannot lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right on an issue the onus of which is on the defendant-respondent, and must reserve the right to do so.
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.
Production of evidence – Requirement of Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC would be treated to be sufficiently complied with if party leading evidence intimates Court before other party begins its evidence th....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
