IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 43 of 2010. Decided on : July 23, 2010. Kamli …Petitioner. Versus Surjan Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and injunction. Suit is being contested by the respondent- defendant. Various issues, numbering 10, have been framed. Onus of three issues was placed upon the petitioner-plaintiff, while onus of rest of the issues, was placed upon the respondent-defendant. Plaintiff examined some witnesses and closed his evidence in affirmative. Thereafter, respondent-defendant was afforded opportunity to adduce his evidence. Respondent-defendant adduced his evidence. Thereafter, plaintiff wanted to lead evidence in rebuttal, but his request for leading such evidence, has been rejected, vide order dated 14.1.2010. He is aggrieved by this order and has, therefore, filed the present petition. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2 - 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Reasons given by the trial Court for rejecting the prayer are that plaintiff had not exercised the option for leading rebuttal evidence at the beginning and also, the issues, onus of which was placed on the respondent- defendant, are not of vital importance. As regards the first ground, petitioner, after examining witnesses, in support of the issues, onus of which was upon him, made a statement that he was closing his evidence only in the affirmative, meaning thereby that he had reserved the right to lead rebuttal evidence. Therefore, observation made by the trial Court that right to lead rebuttal evidence, had not been reserved by the petitioner, is not correct. As regards the second ground, plaintiff cannot be denied his right to lead evidence in rebuttal, with the observation that issues, the onus of which is upon the opposite party, are not of vital importance. Issues, the onus of which has been placed upon the respondents-defendants in the present case, pertain to limitation, cause of action and several other aspects. In case either of these two issues is found in favour of the defendant, plaintiff’s suit would be dismissed. 5. In view of the above stated position, present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal. - 3 - Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9.8.2010. Trial Court’s record be returned, with a copy of this order, immediately. July 23, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh), J.