In reviewing the relevant extracts and legal principles, it is evident that the respondent/plaintiff primarily led affirmative evidence concerning issue Nos. 1 and 2. These issues pertain to the agreement to sell and the payment of Rs. 1,10,00,000/-, including Rs. 45 lacs, which was purportedly acknowledged by the receipt dated 10.09.2004. However, the plaintiff did not lead specific evidence on the issue of forgery contained in issue No. 3, for which the burden of proof rested on the appellant/defendant. Therefore, there was no violation of Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), and the learned Single Judge did not err in allowing the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence regarding issue No. 3.

Case Analysis: Delhi High Court Y.S. Manchanda vs. Jitender Chopra (30 January 2015)

Case Citation: AIR 2015 (NOC) 876 DELHI

This appeal challenges the order dated 01.12.2014 passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in IA 13570/2014, which was filed in CS(OS) 523/2005. The application sought to recall the order dated 08.05.2014, whereby the local commissioner had permitted the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal concerning issue No. 3.

Contentions of the Parties:

Appellant/Defendant:

1. The plaintiff had no right to lead rebuttal evidence as he had already presented evidence on issue No. 3.
2. Under Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC, a party reserving the right to rebuttal must not have led any evidence on the contested issue.
3. Reliance was placed on Nalajala Narasayya v. Nalajala Sitayya & Others (AIR 1992 AP 97), which held that rebuttal evidence is permitted only when the party has expressly reserved this right before the opposing party commences evidence.

Respondent/Plaintiff:

1. The order of the learned Single Judge confirming the Local Commissioner’s decision was valid.
2. The plaintiff had closed his affirmative evidence while reserving the right to rebut the defendant’s evidence on issue No. 3.
3. The plaintiff had not led evidence directly on the issue of forgery but only on the execution of the agreement and payment.

Framing of Issues:

The issues framed on 25.01.2006 were:

1. Whether the agreement to sell dated 10.09.2004 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant? (OPP)
2. Whether the plaintiff had paid Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to the defendant? (OPP)
3. Whether the receipt dated 10.09.2004 and pages 4 & 5 of the agreement to sell were forged? (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance?
6. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to alternative damages, and if so, how much? (OPP)
7. Whether the defendant paid the requisite court fee on the counterclaim? (OPD)
8. Whether the defendant was entitled to damages as claimed in the counterclaim?
9. Relief?

Application of Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC:

This provision states that a party bearing the burden of proof on some issues may either lead evidence on those issues initially or reserve the right to do so in rebuttal after the other party presents its evidence. The crucial requirement is that if a party elects rebuttal, it must not have already led evidence on that specific issue.

Judicial Precedents:

1. Rajasthan High Court in Inderjeet Singh v. Maharaj Raghunath Singh (AIR 1970 Rajasthan 278):
   • Held that a party must indicate its intention to reserve rebuttal before the other party begins evidence.
2. Delhi High Court in Kaviraj Ganpat Lal Sidhwani v. Om Parkash (1975) 77 Pun LR (D) 10:
   • Reiterated that if rebuttal is reserved, it must be clear from the record.
3. Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jaswant Kaur v. Devinder Singh (AIR 1983 P&H 210):
   • Confirmed that rebuttal evidence may be reserved until before the opposing party commences evidence.

Findings of the Court:

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that:

1. The plaintiff led evidence only on issue Nos. 1 and 2 but not specifically on issue No. 3 (forgery).
2. Since the burden of proving forgery lay on the defendant, the plaintiff’s evidence did not preclude rebuttal.
3. The plaintiff was permitted to present rebuttal evidence as per Order XVIII Rule 3 CPC.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order and dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a plaintiff may lead rebuttal evidence if they have not previously introduced evidence on the specific issue assigned to the opposing party.

Disposition: Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.