ORDER

Though these petitions arise out of different suits and some of the parties may be different, since the issue raised in all the petitions is one and the same, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 22.01.2024 in O.S.Nos.431, 429, 432, 430 and 433 of 2015 respectively on the file of the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, Court below), wherein the Memos filed by the plaintiffs in the said suits under Order XVIII Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for reserving their right to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of evidence of the defendants, were recorded permitting the plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence.

Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the said suits were filed by different plaintiffs against different defendants, however, defendant No.1 is common in all the aforesaid suits. When the suits are at the stage of closure of evidence of the plaintiffs, they filed aforesaid Memos under Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC for reserving their right to lead rebuttal evidence after completion of evidence of the defendants. The Court below, vide impugned orders, permitted the plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence after completion of defendants’ evidence. Challenging the same, defendant No.1 in the said suits filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. The petitioner/defendant No.1 assailed the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 by contending that in total, nine (9) issues were framed by the Court below in each suit. No doubt, the nature of certain issues were such which puts burden on the shoulders of the defendants to prove their case, yet the plaintiffs led evidence on each of the issues. In this backdrop, the Court below was not justified in passing the impugned docket orders dated 22.01.2024 whereby the plaintiffs’ right was permitted to be reserved to adduce rebuttal evidence after completion of defendants’ evidence.

5. Criticizing this order, Sri R.A. Achutanand, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the petitions, advanced two fold submissions. Firstly, he submits that in view of the judgment in Syed Yousuf Ali v. Mohd. Yousuf 1, the Court below was not justified in accepting the plaintiffs’ prayer based on the memos filed by them. The plaintiffs should have filed appropriate applications if they intended to reserve their right of adducing rebuttal evidence. Secondly, since the plaintiffs have led their evidence on all the issues, the question of reserving their right to adduce rebuttal evidence does not arise. In support of the aforesaid arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court in Aranya Kumar Panda v. Chintamani Panda and others 2 and judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nalajala Narasayya v. Nalajala Sitayya and Others 3.

6. Per contra , Ms. D. Padmavathi, learned counsel appearing for Sri Pramod Kumar Kedia, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, supported the impugned docket orders and urged that Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC does not require any

1 2016 (3) ALD 235
2 AIR 1977 ORISSA 87
3 AIR 1992 AP 97

express application for reserving the right to adduce evidence where burden to prove certain issues are on the shoulders of the other side. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on Aranya Kumar Panda (supra), Nipendrachandra Bid vs. Rajaram Pulp And Paper Mills Ltd. 4, Nalajala Narasayya (supra) and M/s.Venakta Ramana Agencies and others v. Koppu Gauranna and others 5 .

7. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. Parties were heard at length and perused record.

8. Order XVIII Rule 3 of CPC reads as under: “ Evidence where several issues: Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of whic