Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2018/01/28/rebuttal-evidence-order-xviii-rule-3-addresses-the-question-as-to-what-should-be-done-when-the-burden-of-proving-some-of-the-issues-lies-on-one-party-the-rule-reads-as-follows-rule-3/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 13:12:21+00:00

Document:
rebuttal evidence = Order XVIII Rule 3 addresses the question as to what should be done when the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party. The Rule reads as follows: Rule-3:- Evidence where several issues — Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the 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 then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. The first pre condition for invocation of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that there must be several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party beginning. The second important aspect of Order XVIII Rule 3 is that it is only an option given to a party.
he was filing a suit for partition.
schedule property as prayed for?
Plaint A & B schedule properties?
examined himself as PW.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.A.1 to A.20.
The Power Agent of the 1st respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW.2.
petitioner/1st defendant to come up with the above revision.
the Code. Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code speaks about the right to begin.
distinction between onus and burden lies.
done when the burden of proving some of the issues lies on one party.
Rule 3 is that it is only an option given to a party.
witness box first by exercising his right to begin under Order XVIII Rule 1.
other party, were not there.
invoking Order XVIII Rule 3.
specific provision and that he could fall back upon Section 151 CPC.
was on him, he exercised his right to begin under Order XVIII Rule1.
Therefore, today he cannot go back to the aforesaid proposition.
question. Therefore the said decision has no application.
to the situation on hand.
the defendants to lead evidence.
any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Next Post whether the Court at Hyderabad did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. = Thus, the defendants admitted the payments were made at Hyderabad. The witness examined on behalf of the defendants as DW.1 is the partner of the first defendant firm. On 31.07.1998 during the course of his cross- examination, he clearly admits that he used to make payments to the plaintiff at Hyderabad office and also correspondence was with Hyderabad office. In addition, the correspondence clearly shows that the issues relating to the suit transaction alone were discussed in the exhibits filed and most of the letters are addressed to the plaintiffs office at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. ; validity of documents appears to have been prepared after the suit is filed = It is clear as per settled law that documents prepared subsequent to the filing of the suit are to be scrutinized with greater care when compared to documents which are prior to the suit. The case law reported in Chakicherla Audilakshmamma v. Atmakaru Ramarao and others , State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh , Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan and P. Kumar v. the State of Tamilnadu is relevant, wherein the Honble Supreme Court clearly held that the documents ante litem motam should be scrutinized with greater care because they may be prepared with the litigation in mind. ; mere account copy – computerized printout – not a valid document = As far as the account copy marked as Ex.B.22 is concerned. it is a computerized printout which is merely signed by DW.1. No supporting data like books/ledgers/ invoices etc. to support the entries in Ex.B.22 are produced. As per the decision reported in Smt. Chandrakantaben and another v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others the Honble Supreme Court of India held that entries in account books should be supported by documents like ledgers etc. and somebody should take care to explain the entries also. In this case, a computerized sheet is filed and marked as Ex.B.22. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that neither Ex.B.21 nor Ex.B.22 are adequately proved as required by law and the lower Court is right in not giving due weight with these two documents. ; Mere failure to reply to a notice does not amount to an admission – Division Bench of this Court in Manepalli Udaya Bhaskara Rao v. Kamboyina Dharmaraju . The Division Bench considered the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Watkins Mayor and Company and came to a conclusion that the failure to reply to the notices is not an admission.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.