Lakkhuram vs Mahavir Prassad - 1983 Supreme(MP) 625

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Smt. Sail Shrivastava
For the Respondents: R.C. Lahoti

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 14, R. 5 and O. 18 R. 2 and 3 – additional issues framed after closing evidence of plaintiff – defendant adduced his evidence on additional issues so framed – plaintiff has a right of rebuttal.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 18, R. 2 and 3 and O. 14, R. 15 – additional issue framed after closing evidence of plaintiff – defendant adduced his evidence on additional issues so framed – plaintiff has a right of rebuttal.
        Short Note
       1. In the eviction suit, pending in the trial Court, the plaintiff landlord had closed the evidence on his side on 5 – 12 – 1981. Thereafter, during the mid – stage of evidence on defendant's side, defendant filed an application under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 27 – 7 – 1982. The same was allowed. The plaintiffs application for consequential amendment in his pleading was also allowed. In pursuance of the pleadings as amended 3 additional issues were framed on 1 – 10 – 1982 Issues as framed, prima fade indicated the burden of proof on the defendant tenant with respect to these issues. The defendant adduced some more evidence and then on 3 – 1 – 1983 closed the evidence on his side. The plaintiff prayed for adducing evidence in rebuttal with regard to the additional issues No. 8 to 10, the burden of proof of which was apparently on the defendant. The trial Court allowed the prayer and hence now the present revision.
       Held : It is pertinent to note that the additional issues had been framed after the evidence on the plaintiff's side had already been adduced and the plaintiff landlord then had closed his case. The additional issues were framed, in pursuance of subsequent amendment made in the defendant tenant's written statement. These 3 additional issues are found to be framed in a manner as to cast the burden of proof on the defendant. The defendant, thereafter had adduced more evidence and had then closed the case. The plaintiff had no opportunity to adduce any evidence with regard to the issues No. 8 to 10. Therefore, the trial Court was fully justified in allowing the plaintiff opportunity to adduce further evidence in rebuttal with regard to additional issues No. 8 to 10. Although the trial Court has not observed specifically in the impugned order, but it is clear that allowing of such evidence in rebuttal, it restricted and rightly so only to issues Nos. 8 to 10 and nothing beyond. The trial Court will be therefore cautious to ensure that no lacuna or gaps are tried to be filled in by the plaintiff in the course of his further evidence in the matter of the other issues relating which evidence has already been found adduced on his side. Of course, it would be open to him to examine his any witnesses who might have already been examined earlier with regard to the additional issues No. 3 to 10. The cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses now to be examined has equally to be restricted to additional issues No. 8 to 10 only. Revision dismissed.