Govind Mathur, J. - (1.) BEING having the same controversy, these two petitions for writ are heard together and disposed of by this common order. The order under challenge is dt. 22.09.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Bali in Civil Original Suit No. 37/2005, rejecting an application preferred by the defendant petitioner as per provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff respondent No. 2 preferred a suit for cancellation of a sale deed wherein ten issues were framed and out of those burden to prove issues No. 1 to 6 is on plaintiff and for issues No. 7 to 9 the burden is placed on the defendant. After closure of the evidence adduced by both the parties the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of one Shri Vinod Kumar in rebuttal. The petitioner defendant objected the same with assertion that the plaintiff as a matter of fact intends to adduce new evidence in the name of rebuttal. The application preferred in this regard by the defendant petitioner came to be rejected by the trial Court vide order dt. 29.08.2006, hence this petition for writ is preferred. The argument advanced by counsel for the petitioners is that in rebuttal the plaintiff has adduced evidence in respect of issues No. 8 and 9 and burden to prove those is on the defendant petitioner. If the same be permitted, then the defendant shall be having no opportunity to counter the evidence so adduced.
(3.) PERUSED the order impugned and considered the argument advanced.;