- (1.) The plaintiff-petitioner fdiled a suit for recovery of Rs. 45,000/- together with interest on account of price of 450 M.L. guns alleged to have been sold by the defendant at the rate of Rs. 100/- per gun. The defence set up was that the said guns were handed over to the defendant as balance against payment of Rs. 9,000/- for three months as warehousing charges. The trial Court respecting these pleas framed the following three issues : "4. Whether the defendant contracted to purchase and did purchase from the plaintiff 450 M.L. guns at the rate of Rs. 100/- per weapon ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiff deposited the 450 M.L. guns with the defendant as alleged ? If so on what terms ? OPD. 6. Whether 450 M.L. guns were transferred by the defendant to Faridkot Gun House for the amount of Rs. 21,000/- representing deposit charges ? OPD. The plaintiff led evidence in support of issue No. 4. Thereafter, the defendant led evidence in support of issues Nos. 5 and 6 and rebuttal evidence on issue No. 4. When the plaintiff was asked to produce his rebuttal evidence on the issues, the burden of proof of which was on the defendant, he wanted to prove certain documents and examine some witnesses. This evidence, it is not disputed, would be directly supporting issue No. 4. The contention of the learned counsel, however, is that this evidence would be in evidence in rebuttal on issues No. 5 and 6. The contention is not wholly without merit. But, this queer situation has arisen because the trial Court wrongly framed issues on the pleas of the defendant which are in the nature of counter-version. No issues need have been framed on the version set up by the defendant because they are of no consequence to the fate of the suit and are only made to controvert the cause set up by the plaintiff. The defendant can always lead evidence on his version by way of rebuttal to the case set up by the plaintiff. I have made this observation because I have been noticing in various judgments that issues are framed on the counter-version set up by the defendant which give rise to these complications.
(2.) So far as the present case is concerned, as the issues on the counter-version have been framed, the Court cannot debar the plaintiff from leading evidence in rebuttal on these issues even if it may also tend to support issue No. 4, the burden of which was on the plaintiff. The other prayer for summoning of the record keeper was declined on the ground that the copies of the documents summoned had not been produced. However, for this reason the Court was not justified in declining the prayer as the plaintiff could be ordered to produce copies of the said documents before the witness was summoned. Both the prayers of the plaintiff, therefore, were erroneously declined. The trial Court thus acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction and the impugned order to the extent stated above, is consequently reversed. The plaintiff shall now be allowed adequate opportunity by the trial Court to lead his evidence in the light of the observations made above.
(3.) The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear in the trial Court on October 6, 1979, which is the date already fixed in the suit. No costs. Revision accepted.;