IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2402 OF 2008 Between : Cherukuri Venkata Ramana .... PETITIONER A N D Chuttukuduru Anjaiah …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2402 OF 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.03.2008, in I.A.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.696 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, whereunder and whereby, the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 3 and Section 151 C.P.C. to adduce rebuttal evidence before cross-examining D.W.1, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. O.S.No.696 of 2006 on the file Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, is filed by the petitioner herein for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the respondents in interfering in respect of house site bearing No.242 square yards along with Katterapaka. 4. Since it is suit for perpetual injunction, the question of title to the property in dispute need not be adjudicated. Hence, the burden lies on the petitioner to show prima facie title, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner is not the bonafide purchaser of the property and the purchase of the property through sale deed dated 11.11.2005 and Rectification deed dated 16.11.2005 are created for the purpose of grabbing the plaint schedule property, which is the part of the property covered by the registered sale deed 16.07.205 obtained by the plaintiff in respect Ac.0.20 cents of dry land. 5. One of the issues framed in the suit is whether the plaint schedule property belongs to defendant as pleaded by him. According to nature of framing this issue, the burden squarely lies on the defendant. When the plaintiff filed the suit, the initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish the case so as to seek the reliefs claimed. Further, on issue number No.1, the burden lies on the plaintiff. 6. When the respondent is claiming that he is the owner of the property, the burden lies on him to show that he is having right, title and interest in the schedule property. The petitioner filed an application to adduce rebuttal evidence under Order XVIII Rule 3 C.P.C. The trial Court has not accepted the contention of petitioner. Order XVIII Rule 3 applies to those cases where there are several issues and the burden of proving some of them lies on either party. In such cases, the plaintiff has option either to go into the whole case in the first instance or to adduce evidence on other issues for which burden lies on him to prove, reserving his right to lead evidence in rebuttal if the opposite party makes out a prima facie case. The plaintiff led evidence on which the burden lies on him. In view of the fact that on issue No.2 burden lies on defendant, the case of petitioner falls under second part of Rule 3. Hence, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition. The impugned order is set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order, dated 24.03.2008 in I.A.No.63 of 2008 in O.S.No.696 of 2006 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The trial Court is directed to allow plaintiff to adduce rebuttal evidence on issue Nos. 2 and 3 after examining the defendant witnesses. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J NOVEMBER 02, 2010. YVL