IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5804/2008 (M/s. National Tyres & Another Versus Kalawati Goyal through L.Rs.) Date of Order :: 2nd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sanjay Rahar ) for the petitioners with ) Mr. Bhartesh Goyal) BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The defendants – petitioners have preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 21st May, 2008 passed by the trial court whereby the application filed by defendants no. 2 and 3 under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC has been rejected. 3. The plaintiff - respondent filed a suit for eviction in respect of disputed property against defendants - petitioners in the trial court. The trial court framed seven issues. The issue no. 4 was in respect of partial eviction and burden to prove issue no. 4 was placed on defendants. The contention of defendants is that plaintiff has already -2- adduced its evidence in respect of issue no. 4 while adducing evidence on other issues, therefore, the additional affidavit of Anand Pareek filed on behalf of plaintiff in rebuttal of issue no. 4 should not be taken on record. The trial court has considered the submissions of the parties and has observed that burden to prove issue no. 4 in respect of partial eviction was placed on defendants and after adducing the evidence by defendants, the plaintiff is entitled to adduce its evidence in rebuttal and in these circumstances there is no merit in the application filed by the defendants. The trial court has observed that earlier the evidence adduced on behalf of plaintiff in respect of issue no. 4 was not sufficient and plaintiff has a right to adduce evidence in rebuttal after evidence of defendants, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the affidavit of Anand Pareek filed on behalf of plaintiff was taken on record. The reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of defendants – petitioners under Order 18 Rule 3 appears to be justified. 4. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the said -3- order so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK