Plaintiffs Cannot Reserve Rebuttal Evidence Under Order 18 Rule 3 CPC When Entire Burden Of Proof Is On Them: Andhra Pradesh High Court

For reference, Order 18 Rule 3 provides that— where there are several issues in a case, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at its option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. If the party chooses to reserve its evidence by way of answer, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning; however, the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case.

Against this backdrop, Justice B.S. Bhanumathi held,

“A perusal of the issues shows that the initial burden of establishing all these issues lies on the plaintiffs alone. It is not a case of a normal partition suit wherein, if the plaintiffs claim that the plaint schedule property is joint family property and the defendants take a plea that the property was already partitioned, the burden may lie on the party pleading earlier partition. Whereas, in the present case, the plaintiffs already admitted that there is a registered partition deed, dated 28.02.2022, and seek declaration of the same as null and void. Therefore, they cannot throw the burden of proving any of the issues on the defendants. Order XVIII Rule 3 applies where the burden lies on one party with regard to some issues and the other party with regard to other issues, which is not the case on hand.”

Background

The original suit was filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration of the 2002 registered partition deed as null and void, with the 1st plaintiff being examined as a witness and the matter being posted for further evidence. The suit was opposed by the defendants on the ground that the plaint schedule properties were already divided and hence, the burden of proof of partition was on the plaintiffs.

Later, during the course of the trial, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 3 seeking permission to close their evidence for the present and to adduce rebuttal evidence after closure of evidence of the defendants with regard to certain other issues. However, the petition was opposed on the ground that the plaintiffs have to produce all their evidence and have no right to reserve their right to adduce rebuttal evidence.

The Trial Court dismissed the petition observing that reserving right to lead rebuttal evidence need not be express but could be implied and that where the party had not adduced any evidence on a particular issue, the mere fact that specific reservation was not made was not fatal unless there is anything in the record either expressly or impliedly to hold that the party lost its right to adduce evidence. Further, it was reiterated that in a civil suit, when a party approaches the Court at first seeking legal remedy, the burden lies on such party to prove his/her case and the said party cannot be permitted to rely on the weakness of the other side.

Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court, the petitioner approached the High Court.

As the plaintiffs themselves admitted to the existence of a registered partition deed and sought to declare it void, the Court observed that the entire burden of proof lay upon them as Order 18 Rule 3 only applies when the burden of proving certain issues lies on both sides, which was not the situation in the present case.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.

Case Details:

Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No: 2734 of 2022

Case Title: V. Maheswari and others v. S. Bhaskarachari

Click Here To Read/Download Order