- (1.) PETITIONERS /defendants have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.3.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court ") in Civil Suit No.9/2005 by which the trial court has allowed the application of the respondent/plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal.
(2.) IN the instant case, it appears that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for eviction against the petitioners /defendants under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. The said suit has been contested by the petitioners/defendants by filing written statement. The trial court considering the pleadings of the parties had framed certain issues and had also proceeded for further evidence of the respondent plaintiff. However, it appears that after the evidence of the plaintiff was over, the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants was sought to be amended and the trial court had further added the issues no.7-A and 7-B to the issues already framed. Thereafter, the evidence of the petitioners-defendants was also recorded and completed in November 2011. Since the respondent/plaintiff had already reserved his right to lead the evidence in rebuttal and since the burden of proving the additional issues no.7-A and 7-B was on both the parties, the respondent plaintiff submitted an affidavit with regard to the evidence in rebuttal, to which the petitioners objected by filing the application, on 7.12.2011. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order dated 17.3.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Shri M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv., for petitioners-defendants that the respondent plaintiff could lead the evidence in rebuttal to the extent of issues no.7-A and 7-B which were subsequently framed, but could not lead the evidence in rebuttal for filling up the lacuna. He also submitted that the affidavit sought to be submitted by the respondent-plaintiff under the guise of rebuttal evidence pertained to the other issues on which the plaintiff had already led his evidence and that the trial court had committed an error in permitting the plaintiff to file such affidavit in rebuttal. However , the learned counsel Shri Pradeep Mathur for the respondent plaintiff vehemently submitted that the petitioners-defendants had filed the application with mala fide intention to prolong the proceedings. He also submitted that the written statement was sought to be amended by the petitioners-defendants after the evidence of the respondent plaintiff was over and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to lead the evidence on the additional issues framed by the trial court as well as on the additional facts which have come on record as per the amended written statement, which was permitted to be amended after the evidence of the plaintiff was over. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the written statement and the impugned order passed by the trial court it appears that the petitioners-defendants have challenged the order passed by the trial court permitting the respondent-plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal. It further appears that the petitioners-defendants had sought to amend the written statement after the evidence of the respondent- plaintiff was over and therefore, the trial court had framed the additional issues being no.7-A and 7-B. It also emerges that initially the respondent-plaintiff had reserved his right to lead the evidence in rebuttal for the issues for which the burden was cast on the defendants. Since the respondent plaintiff did not have the opportunity to lead the evidence in respect of the new facts which have come on record by way of amended written statement, and also on the additional issues framed by the trial court, in the opinion of the court, the trial court was justified in permitting the plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal. Though it has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Shri M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate for the petitioners that the said affidavit filed under the guise of evidence in rebuttal included the evidence with regard to the facts pertaining to the other issues, for which the evidence was already led by the plaintiff, this court does not find any substance in the said submission. The trial court has permitted the respondent plaintiff to lead the evidence in rebuttal, considering the subsequent events of amendment in the written statement and framing of the additional issues, which order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The learned counsel Shri M.M. Ranjan has also not been able to point out any perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. In that view of the matter, the court does not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. ;