Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that Plaintiff Can’t Produce Rebuttal Evidence Without Reserving Right where the onus of proof lies upon Plaintiff.
The judgement came out in a case titled as Prem Chand Gupta Versus Sukhleen Singh Dhillon and anr.
CASE BACKGROUND
The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed a suit for declaration that the cancellation of agreement to sell dated 27.12.2019 was illegal, null and void and unilateral and does not affect the rights of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein as also for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2019. Vide order dated 20.12.2022, after completion of the pleadings, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.12.2019 as prayed for ? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP
4. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the true material facts from the Court ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD
7. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
8. Whether the present suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee ? OPD
9. Whether the present suit is time barred ? OPD
10. Relief.
After the closure of defence evidence, an application (Annexure P-2) was filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 for summoning two witnesses. The application simply stated that in order to clarify the events, it was necessary to examine two witnesses. Reply was filed to the said application. Vide the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 the said application was allowed. Feeling Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.
Court Observation
In the present case, admittedly, the witnesses summoned vide the application (Annexure P-2) were to prove the agreement to sell dated 27.12.2019. Issue No.2 reads as under :
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 27.12.2019 as prayed for ? OPP’.
The Court further referred the case of Surjit Singh & Ors. v. Jagtar Singh & Ors. [2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 537] in which A Division Bench has held as under :
15. In our opinion, Order 18, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code would not give a right to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal on issues in which the onus of proof is on the plaintiff. Accepting such an interpretation would be to ignore a vital part of Order 18, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that “the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties”. No matter, how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be amended. Whilst construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously provides the parties with an option either to produce the evidence in support of the issues or to reserve it by making a statement to that effect. The statement itself may well be liberally construed to avoid any unnecessary technical obstacles. One such example has been given by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra). It has been held that if a statement is made by the Advocate for the plaintiff that “the plaintiff closes its evidence in the affirmative only,” the same would be read to mean that the plaintiff had reserved its right to lead evidence in rebuttal. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashmir Kaur (supra) that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the observations of the Division Bench in Jaswant Kaur’s case (supra). The Division Bench has even fixed the maximum time on which the plaintiff has to exercise his option to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. It has been clearly held that such a reservation has to be made at the time of the close of the evidence of the plaintiff. We are also unable to agree with the observations of the learned Single Judge in the case of M/s Punjab Steel Corporation (supra). In that case the plaintiff sought to lead evidence in rebuttal, after the close of the evidence of the defence. At that stage, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to reserve the right to lead evidence in rebuttal. The observations of the learned Single Judge run contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur (supra). No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be taken about the modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But at the same time, it has been held that the last stage for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of Jaswant Kaur (supra) and R.N. Mittal, J. in National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra).”
Further, in the case of Avtar Singh and Anr. v. Baldev Singh & Ors. [2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 625] it was held as under :
“Provisions of Order 18, Rule 2 (3) cannot be construed or constructed to mean that after defendant had rendered his response to the whole case, plaintiff could still have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal. Such an interpretation or construction of the provision would be distorting the provision beyond its content. This perception and understanding further finds complete resonance in the provision of Order 18, Rule 3 CPC, as only the said provision deals with a situation where there are several issues and the burden of proof some of which lies upon the defendant.”
In view of the settled law, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 possibly cannot be permitted to lead evidence in rebuttal on an issue the onus of which was cast upon him and accordingly the said revision petition was disposed of.
For Complete Judgement Click here
