- (1.) Allowed as prayed for. Main Case Aggrieved by order dated 21.02.2012 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala thereby disallowing plaintiff No. 2 Harbhajan Singh to tender affidavit Annexure P-3 as examination-in-chief in rebuttal evidence, plaintiffs have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the said order.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that issue regarding suit being barred by limitation with onus on defendants has been framed and, therefore, in view of Order 18 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code (in short, CPC), the plaintiffs are entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal on the said issue. It was pointed out that affidavit Annexure P-3 is sought to be tendered in rebuttal evidence as examination-in-chief to prove that the defendants attempted to take forcible possession of the suit land and to interfere in possession of the plaintiffs thereon on 20.02.2006 giving rise to cause of action to the plaintiffs for filing of the suit and, therefore, the suit is within limitation and consequently this evidence relates to issue relating to limitation, onus whereof is on the defendants and consequently this evidence can be led in rebuttal. Reliance has been placed on three judgments of this Court namely M/s. Punjab Steel Corporation, Batala Versus M.S.T.C. Limited, Calcutta, 2002 1 CriCC 503 (P&H); Jai Narain versus Satya Narain & others,2008 2 CCC 274 (P&H) and Ranjit Singh versus Mehfil Restaurant, 2008 2 CivCC 225 (P&H).;