2025:HHC:27036 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.70 of 2024 a/w CMPMO No.71 of 2024 Decided on: 11.08.2025 CMPMO No.70 of 2024 Prem Singh Thakur … Petitioner Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & another … Respondents CMPMO No.71 of 2024 Kashmir Singh Thakur (since deceased) through Legal Heirs Sarita Thakur & others … Petitioners Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, for petitioners No.1 (a) and 1 (b), in CMPMO No.70 of 2024 and for petitioners No.1 (a) to 1 (c), in CMPMO No.71 of 2024. For the respondent(s) : M/s Anjali Soni Verma and Shivani Tegta, Advocates, for the respondent(s), in both the petitions. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) As common issues of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, the same are being disposed of vide common judgment. 2. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by order dated 03.01.2024, passed by the learned Court below, in which the right of the plaintiff therein in each the cases to lead rebuttal evidence has been closed by the learned Court below by holding that no express 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27036 reservation to lead rebuttal evidence was reserved by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff at the time of closing of the statements of the plaintiff. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that learned Court below erred in not appreciating that as there were certain Issues framed, onus to prove which Issues was upon the defendants, therefore, but natural, the plaintiff had a right to lead rebuttal evidence once the defendants closed their evidence. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents argued that in the light of the fact that the plaintiff did not close their evidence in affirmative and thus, did not reserve any right to lead rebuttal evidence, learned Trial Court rightly refused to grant of said permission to them. No other point was urged. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the impugned orders in both the cases as well as documents appended by the parties on record. 6. Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code provides for hearing of the suit and examination of the cases. Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure provides that plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contents that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to 3 2025:HHC:27036 begin. 7. Order XVIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that 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 then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case. 8. Thus, it is evident from above quoted provisions that where the plaintiff begins the evidence and there are certain issues, onus to prove which is on the defendant, then the plaintiff has to reserve the right to lead the rebuttal evidence and in the absence of any such right being reserved by the plaintiff, obviously, such a party cannot thereafter claim the right to lead rebuttal evidence once the defendant closes his evidence. 9. Reverting to the facts of this case, it is an admitted position that when the plaintiffs closed their evidence they did not close so in affirmative and no right to lead rebuttal evidence was reserved despite the fact that they knew pretty well that there were certain issues, onus to prove which was upon the defendants. 10. In light of this fact, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Trial Court erred in not 4 2025:HHC:27036 granting the right to lead rebuttal evidence to the plaintiffs is not sustainable in law. 11. In light of the provisions of Order XVIII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the onus was upon the plaintiffs to reserve their right in affirmative at the time of closure of their evidence or reserve their right to lead evience in rebuttal, in the absence of the plaintiffs reserving any such right, it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court erred in refusing the right to lead rebuttal evidence to the petitioners herein. 12. In light of above observation, as this Court does not finds any merit in these petitions, the same are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. The parties to appear before learned Trial Court on 08.09.2025. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 11, 2025 (Rishi)