HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1744 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

21.02.2023 in I.A.No.934 of 2019 in O.S.No.987 of 2015 passed by the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court at Hyderabad, where-under and whereby the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

2. Heard Ms. D.Padmavati, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Shyam S.Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.987 of 2015 against the defendants to declare the sale deed No.1266 of 2015, dated 13.03.2015 as null and void and also for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement, trial commenced and on behalf of plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and when the matter was coming up for further evidence of plaintiff, an application was filed seeking permission of the trial Court to reserve her right to lead rebuttal evidence after the evidence of the defendants as an answer to the evidence led by the defendants. The respondents filed counter and opposed the application. 5. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 21.02.2023, dismissed the application with an observation that the suit was at the stage of arguments and further observed that petitioner being plaintiff has to lead evidence and thereafter defendants have to lead their evidence, unless an issue is framed wherein, the burden lies on the defendants and if the defendants lead their evidence, plaintiff can lead rebuttal evidence against the evidence that was lead by the defendants. The trial Court also observed that except making bald pleas, plaintiff could not convince the Court as to for what reason her rebuttal evidence can be considered after evidence lead by defendants and that application was filed only to drag on the proceedings and that the application is devoid of any merit. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff without properly construing the facts and circumstances of the case. She would further submit that trial Court failed to appreciate the settled law under Order XVII Rule 3 of CPC, as per which, a party can reserve right of rebuttal evidence before the other party begins evidence. In the present case, application was filed before the evidence on behalf of defendants was commenced, however, trial Court erroneously dismissed the application with an observation that matter was coming up for arguments without considering the fact that application was filed even before commencement of evidence of defendants. She would further submit that trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the application and finally, prayed to allow the revision.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on the following decisions:

1 i) Devender Kumar v. Pavan Kumar Agarwal ;

ii) T.China Panduranga Rao and another v. B.Venkatappaiah

2 and others ;

iii) Nagarjuna Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Sarda

3 Agro Oils Ltd., Hyderabad and others ;

4 iv) Nalajala Narasayya v. Nalajala Sitayya and others

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents/defendants would submit that the petitioner/plaintiff failed to make out any reason or the ground for seeking permission to lead rebuttal evidence after closure of the evidence of defendants. He would further submit that evidence