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 others 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537; Avtar Singh and another Vs. Baldev Singh and others 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 625 and Jai Narain Vs. Satya Narain and others 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 585.

3. Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Rampal, counsel for respondents No.1(i) to (iv) has supported the impugned order and has urged that after closure of the evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Kaur and others (CR-280-2021 decided on 25.02.2025).

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective submission besides examining the documents appended with the paper-book.

5. Suit, Annexure P-1, under Section 6 of the 1963 Act filed by the plaintiff is being contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement, Annexure P-2, on various grounds including questioning the maintainability of the suit as well as on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Following issues have been framed by the Trial Court on 09.08.2017, Annexure P-4, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties:-

'1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession under section 6 of Specific Relief Act as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court and has not come with the court in clean hands? OPD

5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by way of principle of resjudicata under section 11 of Civil Procedure Code? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is also bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

8. Relief.'

6. Plaintiff examined witnesses as well as produced documents in support of his case and on 21.02.2019, he closed his evidence. Trial Court passed the following order:-

'Rajinder Pal VS Bal Krishan etc.

Present: Sh. R.P. Grover, Advocate for the plaintiff.

Sh. B.K. Rampal, Advocate for the defendant No.1.

Defendant No.3 stated to be died and defendant No.2 is the co.

Vide a separate statement, plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative. Now case stands adjourned to 12 03.2019 for defendant evidence, PF/DM and list of witnesses be deposited within 5 days.

Dated: 21.02.2019

(Jaswinder Pal)

Civil Judge (Sr. Division)

Ludhiana'

7. After the defendants concluded their evidence, plaintiff filed an application, Annexure P-5, for seeking permission to produce some witnesses in the shape of rebuttal evidence, which after contest has been declined vide order under challenge herein.

8. Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh