ORDER :

MUKESH RAJPUROHIT, J.

1. By way of the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner–defendant has challenged the order dated 30.08.2025 (Annx.9) passed by the Judge, Family Court, Churu in Civil Regular Suit No. 61/2017 (Subhash Chandra vs. Gordhandas & Ors.), whereby the petitioner’s application filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has been partly allowed to the extent of granting one opportunity to respondent No.1–plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence in respect of the partition deed (Ex.A/1).

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted a civil suit for partition and possession of land situated at Churu, claiming 1/18th share as a legal heir of Late Jainarayanji and challenging the relinquish deed dated 03.08.2006. The petitioner-defendant contested the suit, asserting that a prior partition had already taken place in Samvat Year 2013 and that the suit was false and motivated. Though, issues were framed on 28.08.2024 and 25.09.2024, no specific issue was framed against the petitioner. The plaintiff’s evidence, including cross-examination, stood concluded in November 2024, wherein the partition deed was also examined. Subsequently, a rebuttal affidavit was filed by the plaintiff, which, despite opposition, was partly allowed by the trial court vide order dated 30.08.2025.

4. It is contended that rebuttal evidence can be permitted only in relation to issues duly framed; in the absence of any issue concerning the petitioner, the rebuttal affidavit is unjustified and merely an attempt to cure defects in the plaintiff’s case.

5. It is further urged that the partition deed (Ex.A/1) had already been confronted and examined during cross-examination of the plaintiff; thus, permitting rebuttal evidence thereafter is contrary to settled procedural principles and prejudicial to the petitioner.

6. It is also argued that rebuttal evidence is admissible only when new facts emerge during trial; since no such new material has arisen, the impugned order is legally unsustainable.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under Order XVIII Rule 3 of C.P.C., once evidence is closed without reserving the right of rebuttal, such right stands extinguished; therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence.

8. It is additionally contended that photocopy of partition deed was already on record and only the original was produced during evidence; hence, permitting rebuttal on this ground reflects non-application of mind by the trial court.

9. In support of these submissions, reliance has been placed upon the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra & Ors. vs. Additional District Judge & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4997/2006) decided on 15.09.2009 and a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati in V. Maheswari & Ors. vs. S. Bhaskarachari & Ors. (Civil Revision Petition No. 2734/2022) decided on 12.03.2024

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition, submitting that no jurisdictional error has been demonstrated and that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited. It is further contended that the petitioner has suppressed material facts, particularly the filing of replication, wherein it was specifically pleaded that partition of Samvat 2013 in writing was not produced on record and any such document, if now produced, would be fabricated.

11. It is further submitted that the partition deed (Ex.1A) was introduced belatedly after completion of cross-examination; therefore, the trial court rightly permitted rebuttal evidence. The document is also stated to be inadmissible for want of proper stamping and registration. It is argued that the matter involves mixed questions of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction and that the trial court