GUPTA, J. - (1.)HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.)BY the impugned order the learned Court below has decided two applications, first being to prevent the plaintiff from being given opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal as there were no issues having burden on the defendant so as to entitle the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal-The other application decided is the one filed by the plaintiff under Order 14, Rule 5 CPC seeking to have an additional issue framed on the question of comparative hardship, with its burden on the plaintiff.
The stage of the litigation is that before passing of the impugned order, the evidence of both the parties is already over. The learned trial Court by the impugned order has framed the additional issue on the question of comparative hardship, and has placed the burden on the plaintiff and has given opportunity to the plaintiff to lead additional evidence on this issue. The grievance of the petitioner is that if the plaintiff is given opportunity to lead additional evidence on the newly framed issue the petitioner should also be given adequate opportunity to rebut the evidence so led by the plaintiff, as otherwise the petitioner's evidence so led by the plaintiff, as, otherwise the petitioner's evidence is already over and the petitioner would suffer substantial failure of justice.

Needless to say that this submission has nothing to do with the right of the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal as by the impugned order the plaintiff has been permitted to lead evidence only on the additionally framed issue and not in rebuttal. So far as the contention about the petitioner being permitted to lead evidence on the additionally framed issue is concerned, permitting the additional issue with burden on the plaintiff inherently implies within it that if the plaintiff is given opportunity at this stage to lead evidence in support of that issue, the defendant, of necessity, has to be given opportunity to rebut that evidence. It is significant to note that even by the impugned order the learned trial Court has not said that the petitioner would not be entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal of the evidence that may be led by the plaintiff to prove the additionally framed issue. However, to be on the surer footing, it is made clear that the plaintiff completes his evidence, on the additionally framed issue, the learned trial Court should grant adequate opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal of such evidence led by the plaintiff.

The revision petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations and directions. .