Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in a partition suit, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the trial court dated 11.07.2012 in O.S. No. 78/09, which declined their application (IA No. 8) to lead rebuttal evidence. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share each in the plaint schedule properties. The defendants contested the claim and set up a Will dated 30.05.1994 executed by Smt. Girijamma, the mother of the plaintiffs, asserting that the properties should be distributed according to the Will. The trial court framed issues, and the plaintiffs examined two witnesses and closed their evidence. The defendants examined two witnesses and marked documents. After the defendants closed their evidence, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking permission to lead rebuttal evidence. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the plaintiffs had not reserved the right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing their evidence. The High Court held that the right to rebut evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC is not automatic but must be claimed at the appropriate stage. However, in this case, the burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the Will, and the plaintiffs were entitled to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants. The court observed that the trial court's order was erroneous and set it aside, allowing the application for rebuttal evidence. The writ petition was allowed, and the trial court was directed to permit the plaintiffs to lead rebuttal evidence.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 18 Rule 3 - Rebuttal Evidence - Right to rebut evidence is not automatic but must be claimed at the appropriate stage - In a suit for partition, where defendants set up a Will and adduce evidence, plaintiffs are entitled to rebut that evidence even if they had not reserved the right earlier - Held that the trial court erred in rejecting the application for rebuttal evidence (Paras 2-6).
B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 18 Rule 3 - Rebuttal Evidence - Burden of Proof - When the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove the Will, the plaintiffs have a right to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants - The trial court's order rejecting the application was set aside and the application was allowed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in declining the plaintiffs' application to lead rebuttal evidence after the defendants had adduced evidence in support of the Will set up by them.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.07.2012 passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Shimoga in O.S. No. 78/09 on IA No. 8 is set aside. IA No. 8 is allowed. The trial court is directed to permit the plaintiffs to lead rebuttal evidence.
Law Points
- Right to rebuttal evidence
- Order 18 Rule 3 CPC
- Burden of proof
- Rebuttal evidence in civil suits
- Partition suit
- Will
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (03) 58
WP No 26497 of 2012 (GM-CPC)
B.S. Prasad for M/s. Indus Law (for petitioners), Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Counsel for Sri Bhaskar Babu H J (for respondents)
Dr. (Major) Rajesh S M and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging trial court order rejecting application for rebuttal evidence in a partition suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (plaintiffs) sought to quash the trial court order dated 11.07.2012 and allow their application (IA No. 8) to lead rebuttal evidence.
Filing Reason
The trial court declined to permit the plaintiffs to lead rebuttal evidence after the defendants adduced evidence in support of a Will.
Previous Decisions
The trial court rejected IA No. 8 on 11.07.2012 in O.S. No. 78/09.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in declining the plaintiffs' application to lead rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the Will, and therefore they had a right to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants.
Respondents contended that the plaintiffs had not reserved the right to lead rebuttal evidence at the time of closing their evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to lead rebuttal evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC is not automatic but must be claimed at the appropriate stage. However, when the burden of proof is on the defendants to prove a fact (here, the Will), the plaintiffs are entitled to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants, even if they had not reserved the right earlier. The trial court's order rejecting the application was erroneous and was set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the order passed by the trial Court declining to permit them to lead rebuttal evidence in the case.
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share each in the plaint schedule properties.
Defendants have filed their written statement contesting the claim. They have set up a Will dated 30.5.1994 executed by Smt. Girijamma, the mother of the plaintiffs and that the properties have to be distributed in terms of the Will.
The right to rebut evidence under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC is not automatic but must be claimed at the appropriate stage.
In this case, the burden of proof was on the defendants to prove the Will, and the plaintiffs were entitled to rebut the evidence adduced by the defendants.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition (O.S. No. 78/09) in the court of I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM, Shimoga. The defendants filed a written statement setting up a Will. Issues were framed. Plaintiffs examined two witnesses and closed evidence. Defendants examined two witnesses and marked documents. After defendants closed evidence, plaintiffs filed IA No. 8 under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC seeking permission to lead rebuttal evidence. The trial court rejected IA No. 8 on 11.07.2012. The plaintiffs challenged this order by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 18 Rule 3
