CMPMO No. 34 of 2008. 14.3.2008 Present: Mr. P.C.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div), Nahan may be set aside. By this order, the learned trial Court has only allowed the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court on 30.12.2008: 1. “Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the preliminary decree of possession by way of partition of joint property, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 3. Whether this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit, as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5. Relief.” The onus to prove issue No.1 was on the plaintiffs whereas onus to prove issues No. 2 to 4 was on the defendants. The plaintiffs have the right to lead their rebuttal evidence in respect of issues No. 2 to 4. There is no error in the order dated 24.8.2007. Mr. P.C.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed the apprehension that the plaintiff will examine himself in rebuttal on issue No.1 also. Obviously, the plaintiffs are not entitled to lead rebuttal evidence on issue No.1 without permission of the Court. The plaintiff has only been allowed to lead rebuttal evidence on the issues in which the onus was on the defendants. Shri Sharma has also made a prayer that the provisions of order 32 have not been complied with. I find that the suit was filed as far back as in 2003 and till date this matter does not seem to have been raked up in the trial Court. This Court will not interfere in this matter at this belated stage. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contention raised by Shri Sharma which will be decided by the trial Court itself. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. March 14, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.