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.
2. 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 documents which application was accepted and accordingly he placed on record the documentary evidence. It may be noted that the petitioner reserved his right of rebuttal. Copy of the statement made by the petitioner on 7-10-1987 is placed on record as Anncxure `E'.
Respondents Nos.1 to 4 produced their evidence. However, the learned trial Court did not allow the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal vide his order dated 16-11-1987 (Annexure `F'). The above- said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision petition which revision was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 3-1-19&S vide Annexure `H'. As stated earlier, these orders are being assailed by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition.
3. The sole point raised and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is entitled to produce evidence in rebuttal vide his statement dated 7-10-1987 (Annexure `E'). Learned counsel maintained that there was no lawful authority vested in the learned Courts below to refuse to allow opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in rebuttal of the evidence produced by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that sufficient time was allowed to the petitioner to produce evidence and he failed to do so, as such, at this stage, he cannot be allowed to produce evidence to fill-up the lacuna left behind in his case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. 1t may be observed at the very outset that the petitioner did make a statement on 7-10-1987 reserving his right to produce evidence in rebuttal. This aspect of the case has neither been considered by the learned trial Court nor by the learned revisional Court. 1n my view, there is no provision in the C.P.C. Which can stand in the way of the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence already produced by the respondent especially when he has already reserved his right by making a statement on 7-10-1987. The third issue as framed by the learned trial Court was whether the defendants Nos.3 and 4 are bona fide purchasers for consideration, if so with what effect? OPD. It is clear that onus probandi of the issue was placed on respondents Nos.3 and 4. They were responsible under law to prove that they were bona fide purchasers of the property for consideration and that the petitioner was under legal obligation to lead evidence in rebuttal thereof who had already reserved his right vide his statement referred to above. In my considered view this right of the petitioner cannot be interfered with by the Courts below. The interest of justice demands that full opportunity as required by law may be allowed to the parties to produce their evidence in support of their respective pleas in the case.
5. The result of the above discussion is that the impugned orders passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 16-11-1987 and the learned Additional District Judge, dated 3-1-1988 are set aside and direction is issued to the learned Civil Court to allow opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal. This shall be done within a period of two weeks so as to avoid any further delay in the case. The learned trial Court in further directed to see to it that the trial is concluded within one month's time and compliance report thereof is submitted to this Court through the Registrar. This petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.