Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---OXVIII,  R.3--Evidence  in  rebuttal---Production of---Plaintiff/petitioner, after producing evidence before Trial Court to discharge onus placed on him, closed his evidence, but later on submitted application for production of certain documents on record with prayer for reserving his right to produce evidence in rebuttal---Application of plaintiff with prayer for reserving right of rebuttal was accepted and plaintiff placed on record documentary evidence accordingly---Trial Court, however, after recording evidence produced by defendants did not allow plaintiff to produce evidence in rebuttal, despite his right in that respect had already been reserved and revision of plaintiff against order of Trial Court was also dismissed---Right of plaintiff to produce evidence in rebuttal otherwise having already been reserved in his favour, held, could not be denied in absence of any provision in C.P.C. which could stand in way of plaintiff to produce same-- Interest of justice demands that full opportunity should be allowed to parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective pleas in case. Ch. Arshad Mahmood for Petitioner. Mian Abdul Rashid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 9th February, 1989.   JUDGMENT The petitioner, Ghulam Nabi, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the impugned orders having been passed by respondents No.5 and 6 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit for possession and registration of Sale-Deed through specific performance of an agreement against the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4 vide the copy of plaint Annexure `A'. The said suit was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement. Copies of the written statements have been placed on record as Annexures `B' and `C'. The learned trial Court framed as many as four issues. The petitioner produced his evidence with a view to discharge the onus placed on him and thereafter closed his evidence. However, later on the petitioner submitted an application for production of…