CR-4403- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 121 RAJINDER PAL BAL KRISHAN (NOW CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: SUVIR SEHGAL 1. the learned Civil Judge ( Annexure P declined, revision petition. 2. under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, been filed by the petitioner for possession of a plot is contested by the defendants -2023 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RAJINDER PAL VS. BAL KRISHAN (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL Ms. Shivya Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.1 (i) to (iv). Service upon respondents No.2 and 3 was ordered to be dispensed with by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025. **** SUVIR SEHGAL, J. Aggrieved of order dated 18.07.2023 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Annexure P-5, for permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, has been , petitioner/plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition. Ms. Shivya Sehgal, counsel for the petitioner under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, been filed by the petitioner for possession of a plot ested by the defendants. Counsel asserts that after both the parties IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4403-2023 Date of decision:21.05.2025 ...PETITIONER DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS SUVIR SEHGAL Ms. Shivya Sehgal, Advocate Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.1 (i) to (iv). respondents No.2 and 3 was ordered to be dispensed with by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025. 18.07.2023, Annexure P-7, passed by Division), Ludhiana, whereby an application, 5, for permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, has been has approached this Court by way of instant for the petitioner submits that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short “1963 Act”) been filed by the petitioner for possession of a plot and upon being served . Counsel asserts that after both the parties .2025 passed by whereby an application, 5, for permission to adduce rebuttal evidence, has been has approached this Court by way of instant a suit has and upon being served, it . Counsel asserts that after both the parties Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- concluded Annexure P was on the defendant Annexure P and record the Trial Court has erred in onus of proving upon Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and other (Civil) 537; RCR (Civil) RCR (Civil) 3. to (iv) has supported the impugned order the evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Kaur and others 25.02.2025 4. respective submission paper-book. 5. the plaintiff is being contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written statement maintainability of the suit approached the Court with clean hands. Following issues have been framed -2023 -2- concluded their evidence, plaintiff filed an application on 24.05.2023 Annexure P-5, to produce evidence in rebuttal the defendants. While making a reference to the application, Annexure P-5, she states that the plaintiff intends to produce four witnesses record of the previous litigation between the parties the Trial Court has erred in denying the right to lead rebuttal evidence as onus of proving some issues was on the defendants. Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and other 537; Avtar Singh and another Vs. Baldev Singh and others RCR (Civil) 625 and Jai Narain Vs. Satya Narain RCR (Civil) 585. Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Rampal, counsel for respondents No.1(i) has supported the impugned order evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce evidence in rebuttal. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Kaur and others 25.02.2025). I have heard counsel for the respective submission besides examining the documents book. Suit, Annexure P-1, under Section 6 of the the plaintiff is being contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written , Annexure P-2, on various grounds including que maintainability of the suit as well as on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Following issues have been framed plaintiff filed an application on 24.05.2023 to produce evidence in rebuttal on issues the onus of which making a reference to the application, she states that the plaintiff intends to produce four witnesses the previous litigation between the parties. She contends that denying the right to lead rebuttal evidence as was on the defendants. She has placed reliance Surjit Singh and others Vs. Jagtar Singh and others 2007 (1) RCR Avtar Singh and another Vs. Baldev Singh and others 2015 (5) n Vs. Satya Narain and others 2007 (30) Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Rampal, counsel for respondents No.1(i) and has urged that after closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Pritam Kaur and others (CR-280-2021 decided on I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their besides examining the documents appended with the 1, under Section 6 of the 1963 Act filed by the plaintiff is being contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written 2, on various grounds including questioning the on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Following issues have been framed plaintiff filed an application on 24.05.2023, of which making a reference to the application, she states that the plaintiff intends to produce four witnesses . She contends that denying the right to lead rebuttal evidence as She has placed reliance 2007 (1) RCR 2015 (5) 2007 (30) Per Contra, Mr. Rahul Rampal, counsel for respondents No.1(i) and has urged that after closure of evidence in affirmative, plaintiff cannot be permitted to produce He has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in decided on their appended with the Act filed by the plaintiff is being contested by defendant No.1 by filing a written stioning the on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. Following issues have been framed Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- by the Trial Court pleadings of the parties: 6. support of his case and on 21.02.2019, he closed his evidence. passed the following order: Present: -2023 -3- by the Trial Court on 09.08.2017, Annexure P pleadings of the parties:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession under section 6 of Specific Relief Act as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the su maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court and has not come with the court in clean hands?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by way of principle of resjudicata under section 11 of Civil Procedure Code?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is also bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 8. Relief.” Plaintiff examined witnesses support of his case and on 21.02.2019, he closed his evidence. passed the following order:- “Rajinder Pal VS Bal Krishan etc. Present: Sh. R.P. Grover, Advocate for the plaintiff. on 09.08.2017, Annexure P-4, on the basis of the 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession under section 6 of Specific Relief Act as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for Permanent Injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court and has not come with the court in 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by way e of resjudicata under section 11 of Civil Procedure Code?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is also bad for joinder of necessary parties? OPD examined witnesses as well as produced documents in support of his case and on 21.02.2019, he closed his evidence. Trial Court Rajinder Pal VS Bal Krishan etc. Sh. R.P. Grover, Advocate for the plaintiff. on the basis of the 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for possession under section 6 of Specific Relief Act as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff entitled for Permanent it of the plaintiff is not 4. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this court and has not come with the court in 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by way e of resjudicata under section 11 of Civil 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is also bad for produced documents in Trial Court Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- 7. application witnesses in the shape of rebuttal evidence, which after contest has been declined vide order under challenge herein 8. Court in Surjit Singh’s case (supra -2023 -4- Sh. B.K. Rampal, Advocate for the defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 stated to be died and defendant No.2 is the co. Vide a separate statement, plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative. Now case stands adjourned to 12 03.2019 for defendant evidence, PF/D deposited within 5 days. Dated: 21.02.2019 After the defendants concluded their evidence, application, Annexure P-5, for seeking permission to produce witnesses in the shape of rebuttal evidence, which after contest has been declined vide order under challenge herein Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of Surjit Singh’s case (supra), has observed as under “21. 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 Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce B.K. Rampal, Advocate for the defendant No.1. Defendant No.3 stated to be died and defendant No.2 is Vide a separate statement, plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative. Now case stands adjourned to 12 03.2019 for defendant evidence, PF/DM and list of witnesses be (Jaswinder Pal) Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ludhiana” After the defendants concluded their evidence, plaintiff filed an for seeking permission to produce some witnesses in the shape of rebuttal evidence, which after contest has been declined vide order under challenge herein. Interpreting Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, a Division Bench of this , has observed as under:- 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 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 Defendant No.3 stated to be died and defendant No.2 is Vide a separate statement, plaintiff has closed his evidence in affirmative. Now case stands adjourned to 12 M and list of witnesses be nder Pal) Division) plaintiff filed an some witnesses in the shape of rebuttal evidence, which after contest has been this 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 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. The rule clearly postulates that "the party beginning, may, at his option, either produce Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- -2023 -5- his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced 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 g the Division Bench in the case of (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 with the observations made by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kashmir Kaur (supra) lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the observations of the Division Bench in 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 his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other parties". how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously ies 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 . 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 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 s of the Division Bench in Mrs. Jaswant . 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 his evidence on these issues or reserve it by way of by the other parties". how liberally a provision in the statute is required to be interpreted, by interpretation it cannot be construing a statutory provision the Court cannot reconstruct it. The rule consciously ies 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 iven by Smt. Jaswant Kaur . 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 , therefore, unable to agree with the observations made by the learned Single Judge that he is entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal as a matter of right. In our opinion, this observation runs contrary to the Mrs. Jaswant . 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 Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- 9. others Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 794 -2023 -6- rebuttal. It has been clearly held that such a reserv 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) plaintiff sought to lead evi 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 (supra). No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down that an overly strict view cannot be modality of reserving the right of rebuttal. But same time, it has been held that the last stag exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well be before the other party begins its evidence respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in the case of (supra) and R.N. Mittal, J. in (supra). The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for decision of the same on merits. Another Division Bench of this Court in ers Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 794 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 ision Bench in the case of Smt. Jaswant Kaur 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 Mrs. Jaswant Kaur and R.N. Mittal, J. in National Fertilizers Ltd. . The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for decision of the same on merits." Another Division Bench of this Court in Jagdev Singh and ers Versus Darshan Singh and others, 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 794 ation 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 . In that case the dence 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 Smt. Jaswant Kaur No doubt, the Division Bench clearly lays down ken about the t the e for exercising option to reserve the right of rebuttal can well We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations of Mrs. Jaswant Kaur National Fertilizers Ltd. . The reference is answered accordingly. Let the Civil Revision be placed before the Single Judge for Jagdev Singh and has Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Division Bench Singh’s c entire evidence on all issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards issues onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his rig clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party begins its of Order 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by t different Division Benches, which has been followed case (supra) 10. plaintiff closed any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by him at any time before the defenda some issues was on the defendants. Plaintiff, right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error while declining the applic Narain’s case (supra) reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal on two issues. However, in the instant case, such a right has not been reserved. 11. support the case of the plaintiff rather the legal position -2023 -7- held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Division Bench case (supra) has held that the entire evidence on all issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards issues onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his rig clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision r 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by t different Division Benches, which has been followed case (supra). Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the plaintiff closed his evidence in affirmative on any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by at any time before the defendant led some issues was on the defendants. Plaintiff, right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any error while declining the application, vide order Narain’s case (supra), while closing his evidence in affirmative, plaintiff reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal on two issues. However, in the instant case, such a right has not been reserved. Judgments relied upon by support the case of the plaintiff rather the legal position held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on issues, the onus of which is upon him. Yet another Division Bench in Avtar has held that the plaintiff has an option to lead his entire evidence on all issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards issues onus of which is upon the defendant, he shall have to reserve his right. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision r 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. The legal position has been authoritatively settled by three different Division Benches, which has been followed in Paramjit Kaur’s Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the evidence in affirmative on 21.02.2019. He did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by led his evidence, even though onus of some issues was on the defendants. Plaintiff, therefore, does not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any vide order Annexure P-5. In his evidence in affirmative, plaintiff reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal on two issues. However, in the instant case, such a right has not been reserved. udgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner do not support the case of the plaintiff rather the legal position, as noticed above held that plaintiff cannot as a matter of right lead evidence in rebuttal on Avtar option to lead his entire evidence on all issues, and in case, he intends to lead rebuttal evidence or answer evidence that is to be led by the defendant, as regards issues onus ht. It has been clarified that the plaintiff shall have to exercise his option either when he closes his evidence in affirmative or in any case before the other party evidence. If he fails to reserve such right, in terms of the provision r 18 Rule 3, CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand hree Kaur’s Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the did not reserve any right to lead evidence in rebuttal nor such a right has been exercised by ven though onus of not have any right to lead evidence in rebuttal and the trial Court has not committed any In Jai his evidence in affirmative, plaintiff reserved his right to lead evidence in rebuttal on two issues. However, in the do not as noticed above, is Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh CR-4403- in favour of the defendant. irregularity or illegality. 12. costs. 21.05.2025 sheetal -2023 -8- in favour of the defendant. Impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality. Petition sans merit and is dismissed, though with no order as to .2025 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Impugned order does not suffer from any merit and is dismissed, though with no order as to (SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Impugned order does not suffer from any merit and is dismissed, though with no order as to Sheetal 2025.05.26 16:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Chandigarh