A party may be permitted to lead rebuttal evidence even if they did not expressly reserve that right at the stage of closing their evidence, particularly when new documents are introduced into the record, provided it serves the interests of justice and avoids procedural injustice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 18 Rule 2 and 3 - Evidence - Rebuttal evidence - Right to lead evidence in rebuttal - Plaintiff's evidence closed without reserving right of rebuttal - Whether trial court erred in allowing rebuttal evidence - Court held that procedural provisions under Order 18 are intended to serve the ends of justice and should not be used as a technical bar to truth - Where documents are allowed to be introduced at a later stage, parties have an inherent right to lead evidence to meet said documents, regardless of previous closing of evidence - (Paras 6, 8, 13, 14)

(B) Practice and Procedure - Abuse of process - Writ petition filed with concealment of material facts regarding ongoing trial proceedings - Conduct of a party in attempting to delay proceedings for a prolonged period - Court emphasized that procedural fairness requires full disclosure and prevents the abuse of the judicial process through suppression of facts. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The matter involved an eviction suit pending for several decades. After the plaintiff amended their pleadings to include additional grounds, both parties led evidence. The defendant sought to produce numerous documents which were allowed by the trial court. Consequently, the plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal of these documents. The defendant challenged this order, claiming that the plaintiff had not reserved their right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing their case.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the lower court acted correctly in the interest of justice. The court noted that there is no absolute mandate that a party must reserve a right to rebuttal at the exact moment of closing evidence, especially when new documents are introduced later in the proceedings. The court also observed that the defendant had suppressed the fact that cross-examination regarding the rebuttal evidence had already commenced.

Issues: Whether a party can lead rebuttal evidence if they did not reserve that right at the time of closing their primary evidence, and whether the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in allowing such evidence in the interest of justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that strict adherence to procedural technicalities should not frustrate the discovery of truth. When the court allows the production of new documents under the relevant rules of procedure, the opposing party must naturally be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal to maintain fairness, making such an order a valid exercise of discretion rather than an illegality.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Judgment / Order

Reserved On 26/04/2019

Pronounced On 29/05/2019

REPORTABLE

1. By way of this writ petition, the defendant-petitioner assails the order dated 14/02/2018 whereby the application moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC has been rejected by the learned trial court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent filed an eviction suit against the defendant-petitioner on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent, nonuser and fixation of standard rent. The suit came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 08/08/1995. First Appeal was preferred by the defendant-petitioner as well as the plaintiff-respondent against the order of the trial court and the High Court vide order dated 15/03/2016 remanded the matter back holding that the entire rent determined provisionally was paid and the benefit of first default was not examined. The plaintiff-respondent submitted an application for amendment in the plaint which was rejected by the learned trial court against which writ petition came to be filed and the High Court allowed the writ petition vide order dated 22/11/2016 granting liberty to the plaintiff-respondent for making amendments. After amendments, the plaintiff-respondent added one ground of personal & bonafide necessity and comparative hardship. The learned trial court proceeded with the matter after amendment and the plaintiff-respondent led his evidence. The same was ordered to be closed on 13/09/2017. The learned trial court had only allowed the plaintiff-respondent to lead evidence to the extent of default and the case was directed to be listed on 19/09/2017. An application came to be filed under Section 151 CPC by the defendant-petitioner mentioning therein that as evidence had been led by the plaintiff-respondent in relation to the additional grounds allowed to have been added by the High Court by way of an amendment, the defendant-petitioner be also allowed to lead evidence in defence thereto which was allowed by the trial court. On 19/12/2017, after the evidence of the defendant petitioner was closed, the trial court granted a date for rebuttal evidence against which an application was moved by the defendant-petitioner under Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC raising objections with regard to allowing evidence in rebuttal to the plaintiff-respondent which was rejected by order impugned dated 14/02/2018. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 14/02/2018, the present writ petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner.

3. The submission of the defendant-petitioner is that as the plaintiff-respondent had not reserved his right of rebuttal at the time of closing his evidence, he cannot be allowed to lead evidence in rebuttal on the issues for which he had already lead his evidence earlier. Learned counsel for the defendant petitioner submits that the learned trial court has wrongly rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner and relies on the judgment passed in Jhunthi Devi Vs. Rasool Mithammed and ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.15709/2012, decided by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29/10/2012.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has filed an application for vacation of the stay wherein facts have been mentioned by the plaintiff-respondent stating that that there has been material concealment of the facts that detailed cross-examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff has already been conducted in rebuttal and the case was fixed for final arguments by the learned trial court and this factual position was not informed to the High Court. It is stated that the case is pending for last thirty years for eviction. It is further stated that the defendant had moved an application for placing on record 200 documents which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 29/11/2017 and in rebuttal thereto ten documents were filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was allowed and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document