CAV ORDER

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.

4. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

5. As the defendant had filed written statement, plaintiff was constrained to file an application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 to rebut the same. The trial court, after hearing both the sides, dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner/plaintiff approached this court.

7. It was further contended that granting of leave is purely procedural by relying upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in Mohan Raj vs Keval Chand (AIR 2007 Bombay 69), and judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Balwant Kaur vs Kailash Behle , (AIR 2003 HP 48), it was contended that document sought to rebut cannot be refused and therefore, the trail court ought to have allowed the application. The other conte