HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 504 of 2007 Date: 05-08-2010 Between: The Adoni Municipal Recreation Club ………….. Petitioner and B. Nagendra and others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 504 of 2007 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.76 of 2005 in O.S.No.15 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District Judge’s Court, Kurnool at Adoni, dated 29-11-2006. 2. The plaintiffs filed the petition under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reopen the case contending that after completion of the evidence of the plaintiffs in the first instance, a notice was given by them to defendants 2 to 4 reserving the right to adduce rebuttal evidence. But the notice was not filed along with the petition. 3. The request was opposed contending that when the matter was posted for arguments, the question of adducing any rebuttal evidence does not arise when no such right was reserved earlier and therefore, when the notice given to the counsel for the defendants on 09-03-2006 was not filed into Court, the belated request cannot be considered. 4. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that the plaintiffs have a right to reserve the right to adduce rebuttal evidence. But, unfortunately, the plaintiffs did not file the notice served on the counsel for the defendants reserving such a right on 09-03-2006 when the counsel for the plaintiffs reported closing their evidence. The trial Court inferred the presence of bona fides on the part of the plaintiffs in this regard and, therefore, considered the request for reopening the matter positively and allowed the Application. 5. The first defendant challenged the said order contending that when the matter was posted for judgment after closing the evidence of both parties and after hearing the arguments, it could not have been reopened, without any explanation for not reserving the rebuttal evidence earlier or the prejudice likely to be caused if the case is not reopened. The first defendant, therefore, desires the impugned order to be reversed. 6. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, strenuously reiterated the contentions, which were resisted by the opposite side. 7. The point for consideration is whether the order of reopening the suit for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs is susceptible for any interference? 8. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, has furnished the issues framed by the trial Court for determination of the suit, which show that issues 1 to 3 are about the entitlement of the plaintiffs to the declarations and mandatory injunction sought for in the suit, while issues 4 and 5 relate to the suit being vitiated either by the provisions of A.P. Societies Registration Act or Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The determination of issues 1 to 5 on merits on the rival contentions of the parties necessarily appear to involve the shifting burden of proof on several issues depending on the evidence adduced on either side, before determining the legality of the appointment of the fourth defendant as Manager of the first defendant-Club. 9. Under Order 18 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, the party beginning may either produce his evidence on all the issues including those on which the burden of proof lies on the opposite party or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. The right given to the party beginning to reserve it’s right to adduce rebuttal evidence was admittedly not utilized by the plaintiffs herein. But still the residuary power of the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in conjunction with the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure cannot be considered to be obliterated and it is the satisfaction of the Court about the necessity to recall any witness or reopen the matter, that determines the justification for consideration of such request. The impugned order herein cannot be considered to be totally baseless as admittedly a notice was served on the counsel for the defendants on 09-03-2006 when the evidence for the plaintiffs was closed informing that the right to adduce rebuttal evidence was reserved. It is not the claim of the defendants that the memo with an anterior date was subsequently manipulated and if that memo was not filed into Court on that day and orders were not obtained appropriately from the trial Court, the omission appears, in the ordinary and natural course of human events, to be attributable to the counsel for the plaintiffs and not the plaintiffs themselves. The plaintiffs need not be deprived of an opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence, under such circumstances, as rules of procedure are intended to advance the cause of substantial justice, but not to punish the parties for their technical lapses. Therefore, the impugned order need not be interfered with and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. It is needless to state that if the plaintiffs utilize the opportunity to adduce rebuttal evidence in pursuance of the impugned order, the defendants have a consequential right to reply specially on the evidence so produced by the plaintiffs as enabled by Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2010 YCR