AMIT RAWAL,J. - (1.) The petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved of the impugned order whereby application seeking the indulgence of the trial court allowing him to lead evidence in rebuttal by examining Siddharth Chauhan, plaintiff who had instituted the suit on behalf of the Company has been declined.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on going through the issues which are reproduced here in below, the issue No. 2 to 5 are mixed question of fact and law, particularly issue No. 2 dealing with cause of action, and therefore, no pre judice would be caused to the opposite side in case, Siddharth Chauhan is allowed to be examined as they would be able to cross-examine the witness in extenso. "i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 2,53,28,812.50/- along with interest from the defendant on the grounds as taken in the plaint?OPP. ii. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD iii. Whether the suit is band for misjoinder of parties?OPD iv. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit by its own acts and conduct?OPD v. Whether the plaintiff has not come to court with clean hands, if so to what effect?OPD vi. Relief."
(3.) He further submits that the finding rendered by the trial court that the plaintiff did not have any right to lead evidence is totally mis-placed, as such right was reserved.;