1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3, Rule 2 - Provisions of Order 18 Rule 2 and Order 18 Rule 3 CPC are mutually exclusive and have their independent domains, and thus, operate in different situations. (177) P.L.R.
  2. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Additional evidence - Plaintiff has already led evidence in affirmative and his rebuttal evidence was closed - Onus of the issue as framed has to be discharged by the plaintiff - The additional issue so framed does not create any such additional onus on the plaintiff to prove anything over and above the scope of issue as already framed - Framing of additional issue does not reopen the case in favour of plaintiff to seek rebuttal evidence at second rebuttal - There is no such stage in procedural law. (182) P.L.R.
  3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Evidence - Rebuttal evidence - After conclusion of evidence by the parties when the arguments on merits were being heard onus of issue was changed and was placed on the plaintiff - Onus qua the Will had been changed from the petitioner-Plaintiff to the respondents-defendants - When entire evidence has already been lead, mere recasting of an issue does not change the situation and claim of the plaintiff to lead rebuttal evidence to this issue when arguments are already in progress after completion of evidence by the parties and in fact concededly have been heard has no merit. Smt.   (177) P.L.R.
  4. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Rebuttal evidence - While leading her evidence in the affirmative, respondent had failed to examine any handwriting expert - Merely because the petitioner had examined a handwriting expert while leading his evidence would not give right to the respondent to examine a handwriting expert while leading her evidence in rebuttal - Plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead evidence in the affirmative qua an issue with regard to which onus was on the plaintiffs to prove the same - Trial court erred in allowing the application moved by the respondent for permission to examine handwriting expert while leading her evidence in rebuttal. (175) P.L.R.
  5. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Right to rebuttal cannot be exercised unless the onus of an issue is upon other party or the party beginning reserved its right in this regard before the evidence of other party commenced - The petitioner-plaintiff has no right to lead evidence in rebuttal in respect of issue no.1 as the onus to prove the same was on petitioner and the right to lead evidence was not reserved. (173) P.L.R. 2
  6. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Whether it is mandatory for the trial court to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to lead evidence in rebuttal only in those cases where he had reserved his right of rebuttal - Where he fails to reserve any such right, in terms of the provision of Order 18 Rule 3 CPC, his right to lead evidence in rebuttal would stand forfeited. (177) P.L.R.
  7. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Whether plaintiff can independently lead evidence in rebuttal over such issues, the onus of which is purely on the defendant - On having led the evidence in affirmative, as regards the issues, the onus of proof of which is upon the plaintiff himself, he can reserve his right to lead evidence in rebuttal - Needful to assert, leading evidence in rebuttal is also a part of the plaintiff's evidence -  Whether he leads it in one go qua all the issues and close his evidence or reserve his right to lead rebuttal evidence. (177) P.L.R.
  8. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 - Without any application handwriting expert was allowed to be examined in rebuttal by the plaintiff - Fact that the defendant in his cross-examination did not make clear the point as to whether the said documents bear his signatures would not per se entitle the plaintiffs to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal although for not giving answers to the questions posed during cross examination may entail the drawing of an adverse inference for the purposes of appreciation of evidence. (178) P.L.R.
  9. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3 A - Although under Order 18 Rule 3A of the Code requires the parties to be examined first before calling the witnesses it is simply a practice that is not followed in many of the subordinate courts in Punjab and Haryana - It is time that discipline at the trial and the statutory provision regarding Rule 3A of the Code is strictly followed - Even if prior permission is not taken before the commencement of trial, it shall be sought at least at the time before the party is examined - If, in future, any party does not offer his or her evidence first and brings third party witnesses first and later offers to tender evidence without taking prior permission, the opposite party may oppose such evidence before the party's evidence is tendered - The trial court shall not permit evidence to be given unless, it sets out reason in writing why such permission is being given. (179) P.L.R.
  10. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  3A - Rule 3A is directory in nature - Initially respondent permitted his attorney to appear on his behalf as he was not in India - However, when the respondent visited India, he appeared as his own witness - No injustice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner warranting interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction - Petitioner will get an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent.  (179) P.L.R.
  11. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  4 - Defendants have produced affidavits - Provision of the Indian Evidence Act enabling the counsel for a party to cross-examine the witness is a sufficient safeguard to test the veracity of a witness, to shake his credit and to prove him false impeaching his credibility - Provisions of the Indian Evidence Act regarding examination-in-chief, cross-examination and the relevant questions which are relevant for cross-examination as contained in Sections 137 to 154 provide sufficient guidelines and safeguards in this context.  (180) P.L.R.
  12. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  4 - Examination-in-chief of the party through proof affidavit - Court on examination of the proof affidavit on being filed, finds that it contains irrelevant or inadmissible particulars, could reject the same and call for fresh affidavit in accordance with directions - Can also devise a special procedure to assign exhibit numbers and examine admissibility of documents before the commencement of the cross examination - However, if the Court does not hold itself up for examining the proof affidavit filed in each case before the commencement of cross examination, there could be no complaint of error of procedure. (173) P.L.R.
  13. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  4 - Irony of the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 incorporated in CPC is that a Court has got no control over the oral depositions which are made as per the definition of evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act - Affidavit placed on record in examination-in-chief as per provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC is akin to an oral statement made by a witness in Court under Sections 3 and 137 of the Evidence Act - The opposite party always gets an opportunity to cross-examine a witness and ask questions to test the credibility and veracity of the statements made on oath as per the provisions of Section 146 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) S. 3, 137, 146.  (179) P.L.R.
  14. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  4(2) - Case clearly is of omission where the respondent-plaintiff as also the lower Court remained under the impression that all the witnesses of the respondent-plaintiff had been cross-examined and thus, evidence on behalf of respondent-plaintiff had been recorded - In fact, no cross-examination on the plaintiff as a witness had been done and thus, the statement was not complete - Prayer of the respondent-plaintiff to offer himself for cross-examination by the defendant was accepted - Order upheld.  (178) P.L.R.
  15. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  4(4) - Attempt to de-exhibit some documents which were exhibited with the affidavit tendered by the party in lieu of chief examination was rejected - Document exhibited subject to a challenge could be considered by the court about its admissibility or relevance subsequently and mere exhibition of a document will not take away the right of a party to object to its relevance nor will it relieve the court of its obligation to decide on its relevance if such a point is raised at the time of arguments.  (179) P.L.R.
  16. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule  6-A - Defendant can only be permitted to set up the plea of counter claim - Before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired and not otherwise - Application to file counter claim after amendment of the written statement - Dismissed. (175) P.L.R.
  17. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17, Order 11 Rule 14 - Recall of witness - Order 11 Rule 14 CPC lays down that it is lawful for the Court at any time to order production by any party of such documents in his power or possession relating to any matter in question in such suit as the Court shall think right - What is relevant under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC is that the documents must relate to any matter in question in the suit - Order 18 Rule 17 CPC empowers the court to recall any witness who has already deposed and put such questions as the court may deem fit to such witness - Since the subject documents do not relate to any matter in question in the suit and are not liable to be produced under Order 11 Rule 14 CPC, so there is no question of recall of any witness of the respondent under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)
  18. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17, Order 7, Rule 14 - Once the trial court has come to a definite finding that the documents are necessary for adjudication of rival claims of the parties, there is no reason that resorting to provisions of Order VII Rule 14 CPC and ignoring Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, the impugned order could have been passed - In short, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC gives powers to the Court to seek production of any evidence felt necessary by it for adjudication of the matter to help the court to decide the same completely and more effectively. (179) P.L.R.
  19. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17 - Powers lie with the Court to call any witness at any stage or recall any witness, if the Court considers that some clarification is required from the witness - But a party is not well within his rights to seek recalling of the witness for the same purpose. (183) P.L.R.
  20. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17 - Recalling an order - Application accepted - Affidavit was duly vetted by the government pleader and the witness was cross-examined in the presence of  the government pleader - Moreover, the contents of the affidavit were clarified on the direction of the Court itself - There was no such objection taken at that stage - The powers under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act are purely related to the discretion of the Court - There is no satisfaction recorded by the Court that the evidence so sought to be produced is necessary for just decision of the case - Order set aside - Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) .  (182) P.L.R.
  21. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17 Application moved that after consolidation of suits, the plaintiff in one suit should get an opportunity to cross examine the PW already examined in the other suit in which the evidence was recorded prior to consolidation and was ordered be read as the main evidence  Contention Upheld. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 407
  22. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17-A, Section 151 - Additional evidence - Suit for declaration that their occupancy rights in the suit land have ripened into ownership and the respondents should be restrained from usurping the same - Had closed their evidence - Court may in exercise of inherent power under Section 151 of CPC, permit production of documents in additional evidence, that have been sought to be produced by the petitioners - As already noticed, the documents sought to be produced are jamabandis and khasra girdawaries that are per se admissible and, therefore, one adjournment must be granted to the petitioners to tender these documents, subject to payment of Rs. 3000/- as costs to the respondents. (174) P.L.R.
  23. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 18, Rule 17-A, Section 151 - Where there is a wide time gap between the closure of evidence and the commencement of arguments and if something happens in that interval, subject to the other conditions being satisfied, additional evidence in respect thereof could be led - However, on facts application dismissed - Order upheld. (180) P.L.R. (Del.)