Heard Shri Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. A suit for eviction and for possession was filed by the landlord/opposite party before the Judge Small Causes Court on the basis of a rent agreement. It transpires that the defendant did not dispute the rent agreement and, on that basis, the plaintiff led his evidence and did not prove the rent note. After the closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the defendant came to the witness box and denied the rent agreement. Consequently, after the closure of the defendant’s evidence the plaintiff-landlord moved an application to lead further evidence to prove the rent agreement. This application was allowed by the impugned order on 25th October, 2010, against which, the defendant has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the closure of the evidence, no further evidence could be led by the parties in view of the provision of Order 18 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.

4. In my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is bereft of merit. For facility, the provision of Order 18