Bhanwar Singh, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs of other Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, short listed as O.O.S. have filed this application under Order XVIII, Rule 3 and Section 151 CPC. praying for permission to reserve their right to produce evidence on issues No. l(b), 4, 11, 13, 14, 19(a) and 19(c) by way of answer to the evidence that may be produced by the defendants. In the alternative, the plaintiffs have sought for an appropriate relief the Court may deem to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(2.) To recapitulate the facts and circumstances leading the plaintiffs to move the aforesaid application, it appears to be relevant to mention that four other original suits No. 1 of 1989, 3 of 1989, 4 of 1989 and 5 of 1989 pertaining to the disputed structure which was popularly known as Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, district Faizabad, are pending trial before this Court. The other Original Suit No. 4 of 1989 was filed by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others against Gopal Singh Visharad and others. The O.O.S. No. 1 of 1989, the O.O.S. No. 3 of 1989 and O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 are connected with the aforesaid suit. Most of the parties are common in all the original suits and since common issues were involved, these suits were consolidated for trial. Whereas the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others claimed that the disputed structure which was demolished on 6.12.1992, was a mosque with land appurtenant thereto, the contention of the defendant No. 2, Sri Paramhans Ram Chander Das, defendant No. 3, Sri Mahant Rameshwar Das, Mahant Sarbarkar and the defendant No. 13, Sri Dliaram Das is that it was a religious place with a temple, popularly known as 'Ram Janam Bhumi, i. e. the birth place of Lord Ram. The other original Suit No. 4 of 1989 was termed to be as the leading case and after the issues were framed, the plaintiffs of other original Suit No. 4 of 1989 Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and others were directed to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs made their statement under Order XVIII, Rule 2(1) Code of Civil Procedure and thereafter started adducing their oral evidence in support of the case. In the process of examination of the plaintiffs witnesses, 16 witnesses have been examined so far. The testimony of P.W. 16 Prof. Suraj Bhan was closed on 10.8.2000 and thereafter the hearing was adjourned to September 11, 2000.
(3.) The application under consideration has been moved with the allegations that the plaintiffs arc not in a position to close their oral evidence as they are not yet aware of the nature and contents of the evidence likely to be produced by the defendants on issues No. l(b), 4, 11, 13, 14, 19(a) and 19(c). As a matter of fact, the burden of proof of the aforesaid issues lies on the defendants and the plaintiffs have the option either to produce their evidence on these issues in continuation of the other evidence being led or to reserve their right by way of answer to the evidence to be adduced by the other parties. It is alleged further that in case, the plaintiffs do not reserve their right to lead their evidence on the aforesaid issues by way of answer, a serious prejudice is likely to be caused to them as they may not be able to produce necessary and proper evidence on the above issues in order to assist this Court for a just decision. Further, some of the documents proposed to be relied upon the defendants have not yet been admitted in evidence and, as such, the plaintiffs are not in a position to lead evidence in rebuttal of such documents. Therefore, in these circumstances, as the plaintiffs have pleaded, it would be expedient and in the ends of justice to permit them to produce their evidence on the issues referred to above by way of answer to the evidence of the defendants. It has, however, been left to the discretion of the Court to pass any other appropriate order that may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case.;