Rebuttal evidence may be presented even after closure of evidence if necessary to ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the impugned order as at Annexure-5 passed in connection with the suit in CS No.111 of 2019 by learned Senior Civil Judge, Bhubaneswar, whereby, an application as per Annexure-3 seeking rebuttal evidence by him in the facts and circumstances of the case was declined on the grounds inter alia that such a decision is not in accordance with law, hence, to be interfered with and set aside in the interest of justice.

2. The petitioner, as plaintiff No.1A, moved an application as at Annexure-3 seeking leave of learned court below to adduce further evidence in rebuttal later to the examination of plaintiff No.2 as a witness from the side of the contesting defendant, which was opposed with an objection as per Annexure-4. The learned court below, however, held that same to be not necessary and was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-5. According to learned court below, original plaintiff No.1, who was the father of the petitioner deposed in the suit, while he was alive and in the meantime, evidence from the side of the plaintiffs was closed and under such circumstances, when it is posted for argument, there is no reason to allow any such rebuttal evidence as the same is also not necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. According to the petitioner, the impugned decision as per Annexure-5 does not stand to any good reason at all, inasmuch as, the scope of examination of a witness at any stage of the suit is never curtailed all the more when the same is in the nature of rebuttal evidence even though it is on the verge of disposal and therefore, learned court below erred in law in rejecting such a request while disposing of Annexure-3, hence, the impugned order at Annexure-5 suffers from legal infirmity.

3. Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

4. In the suit, opposite party No.1 as sole defendant filed the WS, a copy of which is at Annexure-2. In fact, the suit is instituted by original plaintiff No.1 since deceased and opposite party No.2 against opposite party No.1 and proforma opposite party rd No.3 for a declaration that the gift deed dated 3 February, 2017 executed in favour of opposite party No.1 to be illegal with such other reliefs as deemed fit and proper with costS being awarded. The crux of the dispute is over the alleged gift deed executed in favour of opposite party No.1 in 2017 with a plea by the plaintiffs that the same was managed under threat and coercion. The gift deed has been executed by the plaintiffs in favour of opposite party No.1 and the same is challenged with the allegation that it was never intended but was managed by playing fraud upon them. The petitioner is the son of the plaintiffs, whereas, opposite party No.1 and proforma opposite party No.3 are their daughters. In other words, the alleged gift deed was executed by the parents in favour of one of the daughters, namely, opposite party No.1, who is the sole defendant in the suit. Though, the plaintiffs instituted the suit, opposite party No.2, namely, mother of opposite party No.1 and the petitioner switched her side and examined as a witness from the side of the defendant daughter. After such examination of opposite party No.2 as D.W.2 supporting the claim of opposite party No.1, the petitioner as the substituted plaintiff No.1A moved the application as per Annexure-3 to lead rebuttal evidence challenging the execution of the gift deed. However, as earlier stated, such an attempt of the petitioner was unsuccessful as the application i.e. Annexure