IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 691 of 2005. [O&M] Date of Decision: 8th July, 2009. Sant Partap Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.K.Gupta, Advocate Versus Hari Singh & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge [Senior Division], Sangrur whereby the respondent – plaintiffs have been permitted to lead rebuttal evidence on Issue No.13. The respondent – plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration against the defendants who are more than hundred, seeking declaration of ownership along with possession in respect of land measuring 335 kanals situated within the revenue estate of Sangrur. A decree for permanent injunction has also been sought. 17 issues, as reproduced in para no. 3 of the Grounds of Revision, have been framed. The onus to prove issues No. 11, 12, 13 and 14 lies on the defendants, whereas onus to prove issues No. 15 and 16 has been fixed on defendants No. 37 to 40. Similarly, onus to prove Issues No. 1 to 10 lies on the respondent-plaintiffs. Issue No. 13 is to the effect as to “whether the defendants are bona-fide purchasers for valuable consideration?”. The record reveals that at one point of time, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent-plaintiffs have already led their evidence in affirmative to prove Issues No. 1 to 10, they moved an application to lead evidence in rebuttal in support of those very issues but it was dismissed by the trial Court vide its order dated 8.3.2004 which was upheld by this Court in Civil Revision No. 1643 of 2004 decided on 1.4.2004. The respondent – plaintiffs, however, moved another application to produce [i] Clerk of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur; [ii] Patwari Halqa, Sangrur and [iii] Shri B.K.Goel, Advocate and [iv] an expert to prove the signatures of one Shamsher Singh. After the respondent-plaintiffs had deposited the diet money etc. and process had also been issued to these witnesses, the petitioner – defendants moved an objection-cum- application stating that the respondent – plaintiffs can not be permitted to produce the aforesaid evidence in rebuttal. The petitioner – defendants' contention was that such a prayer of the respondent – plaintiffs had already been declined by the trial Court vide order dated 8.3.2004 which stood upheld by this Court also. The said objection has not found favour with the trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 8.1.2005, has permitted the respondent – plaintiffs to summon and produce those witnesses. Aggrieved, the petitioner – defendants have approached this Court. As noticed earlier, the onus to prove Issue No. 13 lay on the petitioner – defendants and they have already led their evidence in support thereof. The question is as to whether or not the respondent – plaintiffs are entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal on that issue finds answer in Order 18 Rule 3 CPC which reads as follows:- “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 general on the whole case”. The above provision contemplates that if there are several issues and the burden of proof of the same lies on the other party, the party beginning the evidence is at the option to either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it to be produced in rebuttal. It would mean that whenever the onus to prove an issue lies on the defendant, the plaintiff shall be at liberty either to produce the evidence in respect of that issue while leading his evidence in affirmative or can reserve his right to lead the same after the defendant has led the evidence. It is not the petitioner's case that the respondent – plaintiffs have led any evidence on Issue No. 13 while producing their affirmative evidence in support of Issues No. 1 to 10, the onus of proof of which was on them. On the contrary, the respondent – plaintiffs want to lead evidence in rebuttal only against Issue No. 13, the onus to prove that is on the petitioner – defendants and who have already led their evidence in support thereof. No error of jurisdiction has, thus, been committed by the learned trial Court in allowing the respondent – plaintiffs to lead evidence in rebuttal on Issue No. 13. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. July 08, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE