1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1643/2008. (LICHMAN RAM VS. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV) & ORS.) DATE OF ORDER : 11.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. B.S. Charan for the petitioner. By this petition for writ validity, correctness and propriety of the order dated 2602.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagaur in original suit No.33/05 is assailed. By the order aforesaid, learned trial court allowed the Mauka Commissioner to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in rebuttal. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that as per Order 18 Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure 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 2 then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case and in the instant matter, the learned trial court while permitting the Mauka Commissioner to come in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, ignored the provisions referred above. I have examined the order impugned. The trial court with a view to arrive at a just decision, granted permission to Mauka Commissioner to lead evidence on behalf of the plaintiff in rebuttal. While exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I do not considerate appropriate to interfere with the order impugned as the petitioner shall be having a right to take all grounds available in his memo of appeal, if ultimately the suit is decided against him. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/