THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3085 and 3086 of 2010 Dated: 26-8-2010 Oral order: The revision petitioner in both the revisions is the plaintiff in O.S.No. 18 of 2004 on the file of the Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge’s Court, Prakasam. The suit was filed, as is apparent, in 2004 for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The plaintiff’s evidence was concluded on 8-7-2009 and the matter posted for adducing evidence on behalf of the defendants to 10-7-2009. Before closure of the evidence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s counsel filed a memo on 29-6-2009 (as is now established) without serving it on the counsel for the defendants, in CFR No. 779 of 2009 reserving plaintiff’s right to lead rebuttal evidence. On 3-11-2009 evidence on behalf of the defendants was closed. Thereafter on 13- 11-2009, the plaintiff, in I.A.No. 623 of 2009 sought reopening of the evidence in the suit to enable him to lead rebuttal evidence, in view of the earlier memo CFR No. 779 of 2009 on 11-2-2010. Notice to the defendants was ordered on the application on 14-4-2010. On 16-4- 2010 by a separate order, the Court rejected the plea in CFR No. 779 of 2009 as well as the plea in I.A.No. 623 of 2009 of the plaintiff/revision petitioner. The Court below relying on the judgment in Bode Prasad and another v. Karlapudi Venkateswara Rao and others[1] held that rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 of the CPC could be adduced only when permitted by the Court and for such permission to be accorded, an application should be filed before the other side commences the evidence though it could be filed even at the fag end of recording of the evidence of the party which intends to adduce rebuttal evidence. The Court below concluded that the plaintiff’s counsel had filed the Memo (CFR No. 779 of 2009) without serving notice on the defendant’s counsel or the defendants and therefore could not be taken into consideration as an application filed for adducing rebuttal evidence before conclusion of the plaintiff’s evidence and commencement of the defendants evidence. The same view as has been expressed in Bode Prasad (supra) is reiterated by a learned Division Bench of this Court in Nalajala Narsayya v.Nalajala Sitayya[2]. This Court held after an extensive survey and analysis of relevant precedents that “the reservation of the right to adduce rebuttal evidence need not always be express but it can also be implied from the facts and circumstances of the case”, and further observed that the reservation of the right to adduce rebuttal evidence may be by way of a Memo filed on behalf of the parties who has begun the evidence on his side, but may also be implied in a case where the counsel for such a party makes a statement that he is closing the evidence of his party in the affirmative only and in such a case, it must be held that the party had implicitly reserved the right to adduce rebuttal evidence. In the case on hand, the memo filed on behalf of the revision petitioner/plaintiff on 29-6-2009 is of no consequence as it was filed into the court without serving it on the defendants or their counsel. It could not be taken as an express reservation asserted before the closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence. No implication as to reservation of the right to lead rebuttal evidence after closure of the defendants’ evidence is inferable from the facts and circumstances of the case. On the aforesaid analysis, the orders impugned in these revisions are impeccable and warrants no interference. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri V.Ravindaranath Reddy and Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 26th August, 2010. GRR [1] 2009 (5) ALD 298 [2] AIR 1992 AP 97