Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 Date of decision: 28.11.2008 Bimla Devi etc. .......Petitioners Versus Smt. Anjali Sharma .......Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Present: Ms Ekta Thakur, Advocate for the petitioners -.- NIRMALJIT KAUR , J. The plaintiff filed a civil suit, claiming damages on account of alleged defaming, humiliating, insulting and harassing her against the petitioner/defendants. The plaintiff examined as many as four witnesses, including herself and she was the last witness and her examination in chief was recorded on 21.01.2004. After the closing of evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, the defendants led their evidence. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was allegedly entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 on 04.12.2004. However, at the time of cross examination, the alleged compromise was denied by defendant No. 1. Accordingly, the plaintiff sought to tender in evidence affidavit of Anjali Sharma, Sunil Bajaj and Jagdish Sharma, who had earlier appeared and examined in the case as PW-4, PW-3 and PW-2, respectively. The petitioner, thereafter moved an application under the provisions of Order Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 2 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure stating therein that since the onus to prove the material issue was upon the plaintiff and she has already led the evidence on the said issue, now she cannot lead any rebuttal evidence to make improvement in her evidence. But the learned trial Court dismissed the application being devoid of merits vide order dated 23.09.2008. Through the instant civil revision, the petitioner/defendants have challenged the aforesaid order dated 23.02.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendants has been heard. It is vehemently contended that the plaintiff/respondent has no right to give rebuttal evidence on the issue in which onus to prove is on the plaintiff, herself. Further, the witnesses already examined cannot be allowed to be re-examined after the rebuttal evidence of the defendants. As such, evidence is completely barred under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC. In order to substantiate her averments, reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in the case of 'Gurnam Singh v Jit Singh', 1998 (1)PLJ 551. However, I do not agree with the contention so raised by the counsel for the petitioners. The sole question before this Court is whether under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, the respondent/plaintiff could have been allowed to lead her evidence in rebuttal. Order 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:- “3. Evidence where several issues:- Where there are several issues, the burden to 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 Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 3 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 well then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.” Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure has already been interpreted in the case of “Smt. Kashmir Kaur v Smt. Bachan Kaur and another”, 2002(1) PLR 606, as follows:- “6. The view that has been taken by this Court in the matter otherwise also appears to be in consonance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as well. Order 18 deals with examination of witnesses. By virtue of Rule 1 of Order 18, plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by him. As per rule 2 of Order 18 on the day fixed for hearing of the suit or any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, the party having the right to begin has to state his case and produce evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. Rule 2 or Order 18 further provides that the other party can then state his case and produce his evidence and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. By virtue of Rule 3 Order 18, the party beginning may then reply gen4erall on whole case. The provisions of Order 18 do, thus, prescribe the procedure of recording Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 4 evidence which in turn entails a right plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal, even with regard to an issue, onus whereof was initially upon him. The procedure prescribed for recording evidence, as envisaged in Order 18, is based upon common sense. Insofar as plaintiff is concerned, while examining his evidence, in affirmative, he has no idea as to by which evidence, the defendants is to rebut his evidence, whereas the defendant, while leading his evidence, knows exactly what evidence has been led by the plaintiff and by which evidence he has to rebut the same. The defendant is, thus, permitted to lead evidence with regard to whole case which right has been given to the plaintiff by way of rebuttal, i.e., he too can address on the entire case. The whole case mentioned in various rules of Order 19 does include, in its sweep, the issues, onus whereof is upon the plaintiff. At this stage, it may be relevant to mention that this is law of pleadings as well. When the plaintiff files a suit, defendants knows what exactly has been disclosed therein. He is thus, given a right to file written statement wherein he may not only answer the pleadings made in the plaint but may also press into service additional pleas which can entail dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff is then given a right to replication and the same is not confined only to additional pleas taken in the written statement. The plaintiff has also right to Civil Revision No. 6569 of 2008 5 file reply to the written statement as a whole.” The evidence so required to be placed on record in the present case in the form of rebuttal are three affidavits to establish and prove that a compromise had been effected between the respondent/plaintiff and petitioner/defendant No. 1, which came into existence during the pendency of the suit after the examination in chief of the witnesses of the respondent was recorded. These affidavits were denied. Hence, it becomes imperative to lead rebuttal evidence. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Gurnam Singh's case (supra), the provisions of the Order 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, have not been discussed, and as such, it has rightly been concluded by the trial court that the aforesaid judgment does not help in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, I find no merit in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [NIRMALJIT KAUR] JUDGE November 28, 2008 mohan