Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
Prem Singh Thakur – Appellant
Versus
Life Insurance Corporation of India – Respondent
CMPMO No.70 of 2024 | CMPMO No.71 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Mr. Surya Chauhan
For the Respondents: M/s Anjali Soni Verma, Shivani Tegta
Parties must explicitly reserve the right to lead rebuttal evidence when closing their case, or they forfeit that right according to procedural law.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XVIII - Right to lead rebuttal evidence - The petitioners challenged the trial court's order closing their right to lead rebuttal evidence, arguing it was their inherent right due to the onus on defendants to prove certain issues. The court emphasized that without reservation of right to lead rebuttal evidence, such claim is unsustainable. (Paras 2-11)
(B) Civil Procedure Code - Onus of Proof - The court reiterated the need for plaintiffs to affirmatively close evidence and reserve rebuttal rights, failing which the right cannot be claimed post defendants' closure. (Paras 6-8)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners contested the trial court’s order that denied them the right to lead rebuttal evidence based on their prior closure of evidence without reservation.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court’s order, stating no merit in the petitions as the plaintiffs did not reserve the right to lead rebuttal evidence.
Issues: The primary issues were whether the plaintiffs had the right to lead rebuttal evidence after closing their case without reservation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to rebuttal evidence is contingent on explicit reservation at the closure of a party's evidence, which the plaintiffs failed to secure.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging trial court's denial for rebuttal evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. the importance of reserving rights when closing evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 8) |
| 3. consequences of not reserving rebuttal rights. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. final decision regarding the petitions' dismissal. (Para 12) |
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
As common issues of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same are being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2024, passed by the learned Court below, in which the right of the plaintiff therein in each the cases to lead rebuttal evidence has been closed by the learned Court below by holding that no express
reservation to lead rebuttal evidence was reserved by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff at the time of closing of the statements of the plaintiff.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for. the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that learned Cou rt below erred in not appreciating that as there were cerotain Issues framed, onus to prove which Issues was upon the defendants, therefore, but natural, the plaintiff had a right to lead rebuttal evidence once the defendants closed their evidenceu.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that in the light of the fact that the plaintiff did not close their evidence in affirmative and thus, did not reserve any right to lhead rebuttal evidence, learned Trial Court rightly refused to grant of said permission to them. No other point was urged.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned orders in both the cases as well as documents appended by the parties on record.
6. Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code provides for hearing of the suit and examination of the cases. Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure provides that plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contents that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin.
7. Order XVIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning m.ay, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning omay produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning;u but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.
8. Thus, it is evident from above quoted provisions that where the plaintiff begins the evidence and there are certain issues, ohnus to prove which is on the defendant, then the plaintiff has to reserve the right to lead the rebuttal evidence and in the absence of any such right being reserved by the plaintiff, obviously, such a party cannot thereafter claim the right to lead rebuttal evidence once the defendant closes his evidence.
9. Reverting to the facts of this case, it is an admitted position that when the plaintiffs closed their evidence they did not close so in affirmative and no right to lead rebuttal evidence was reserved despite the fact that they knew pretty well that there were certain issues, onus to prove which was upon the defendants.
10. In light of this fact, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Court erred in not granting the right to lead rebuttal evidence to the plaintiffs is not sustainable in law.
11. In light of the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3 of the Ci
