Civil Revision No. 7358 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7358 of 2011 Date of decision:-30.11.2011 Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The Senior Manager, Allahabad Bank and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. RITU BAHRI J. Challenge is to the order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) whereby the application for examining a witness in rebuttal filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.51,674/- alongwith interest. The suit has been filed against the Allahabad Bank, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta. On 24.4.2007, one issue was framed, which is as under :- “Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest as prayed for?OPP” The onus to prove this issue was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff closed his evidence after four years of framing of issues. The defendants have concluded their evidence. The plaintiff was required to lead the evidence in affirmative on this issue. Civil Revision No. 7358 of 2011 -2- After the evidence of the plaintiff was closed,defendants have also closed their evidence within a period of five months. A Division Bench of this Court in Surjit Singh and others versus Jagtar Singh and other 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 537 had an occasion to examine the order 18 Rule 3 CPC the question before the Division Bench was whether a party can be permitted to lead evidence on the issues for which burden for proof was on that party. Unless the plaintiff reserves a right to lead his evidence in rebuttal. For reference, Order 18 Rule 3 CPC is reproduced below :- “Order 18 Rule 3. Evidence where several issues Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the latter case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” As per Order 18 Rule 3 it transpires that unless the plaintiff reserves a right to lead evidence, it cannot be claimed as a matter of right to lead his evidence in rebuttal. The plaintiff has specifically assert this right when he is closing the evidence. The language of the Rule cannot be interpreted in a manner, which amounts to amendment of the provision. The Rule provides that a party, however, has a right to conclude evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to Civil Revision No. 7358 of 2011 -3- that effect. The last stage for exercising the reserve to right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begin its evidence. In the facts of the present case the defendants have closed their evidence. Applying the ratio of the judgment in Surjit Singh's case (supra) the order does not require any interference. A co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Mohan Pal Singh and another versus Karampal Singh and another 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 627 and in Bhure Lal versus Suraj Bhan and another 2010(4) RCR (Civil) 766 has taken the similar view as followed by the Division Bench judgment. Hence, the order dated 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-5) calls for no interference. The civil revision is dismissed. November 30, 2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE