C.R. No.4253 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4253 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.7.2010 Prem Singh and others ……Petitioners VERSUS Jaiwantri Devi and another ……Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners. 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? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioners have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.6.2010 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambala City re- jecting the application of the defendant (petitioner herein) to reject the evidence of the plaintiff. C.R. No.4253 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 2. Brief facts of the present case are that eight issues were framed. Burden to prove issues No.1 and 2 was on the plaintiff while burden to prove issues No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 was placed on the defen- dant. In the beginning of the evidence, plaintiff had exercised his op- tion under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC to reserve his right to lead evidence in rebuttal after the evidence of the defendant on the issues on which burden to prove was placed on the defendant. After the closure of the evidence on issues No.3 to 7, plaintiff filed an affidavit in rebuttal to the evidence led by the defendant. Thereafter defendant/petitioner moved an application to reject the evidence of the plaintiff which he has filed after the evidence of the defendant. Learned trial Court re- jected the application of the defendant-petitioner on the ground that in the beginning plaintiff has reserved his right to lead his evidence after the evidence of the defendant on the issues No.5 and 6, he has thus every right to lead evidence in rebuttal. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners apprehends that in the garb of the evidence in rebuttal plaintiff would lead fresh evi- dence. The apprehension is misconceived. Plaintiff can lead evi- dence in rebuttal only on those issues on which plaintiff had reserved his right. Any other evidence led by the plaintiff beyond the rebuttal can be ignored by the learned trial Court at the time of hearing of the suit. 4. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. C.R. No.4253 of 2010 (O&M) -3- ( ALOK SINGH ) 13th July, 2010 JUDGE ashish