THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5688 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent filed O.S.No.163 of 2002 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Allagadda, against the petitioner, for the relief of perpetual injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner filed A.S.No.3 of 2003 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. In the appeal, he filed an application under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court, leaving it open to the parties to adduce additional evidence. The respondent filed a memo, stating that he has no further evidence to adduce. A request was made to the effect that, in case the petitioner herein adduces further evidence, he may be given an opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence. The trial Court took the memo on record. The petitioner filed I.A.No.809 of 2010, under Rule 3 of Order 18 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to reject the request of the respondent, to adduce rebuttal evidence. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 19-11-2010. Hence, this revision. Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a request, seeking permission to adduce rebuttal evidence must be made, before the evidence of the concerned party begins, and in the instant case, the memo, seeking such permission was filed after the evidence on behalf of the respondent was completed, at the trial stage, and after reporting that he has no further evidence to adduce, after remand. He further contends that, by the time the memo was taken up for consideration, additional evidence on behalf of the respondent has already been adduced. He places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bode Prasad and another v. Karlapudi Venkateswara Rao and others[1]. The objection raised by the petitioner for the memo filed by the respondent is totally untenable. It was the petitioner, who filed an application under Rule 27 of Order 41 C.P.C., before the lower Appellate Court, seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. The lower Appellate Court thought it fit to relegate the matter to the trial Court, leaving it open to both the parties to place any additional evidence. On his part, the respondent stated that he has nothing more to add in evidence. Since the very purpose of remanding the matter was to permit the petitioner herein to adduce further evidence, the respondent sought permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, if it is warranted. It is only after the petitioner has examined any further witnesses, or filed additional documents, that the respondent would have in a position to understand the scope of it. He cannot be expected to guess the nature of evidence, and lead his evidence. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner itself, a clear observation was made to the effect that a request, as to rebuttal evidence can be made at any stage, before the other side commences its evidence. Support was derived from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Syed Afzal v. Syed Hamia (died) per L.Rs[2] . There are no merits in the C.R.P. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14-12-2010. KO [1] 2009 (6) ALT 145 [2] 2002 (5) ALT 175