Property Association of Baptist Churches Private Limited and Another vs State of Orissa and Others

P.C. Misra, J.—The grievance of the plaintiffs in this revision has already been solved in the judgment passed in C. R. No. 290 of 1983. This revision also, arises out of a same suit in which the aforesaid revision had arisen. By order dated. 6. 4. 83 which is impugned order in this revision, the learned Additional Sub-Judge has permitted the plaintiffs to adduce rebuttal evidence, but has put some limitations by saying that the rebuttal evidence shall not be permitted to he adduced in respect of some of the documents produced by . the defendants and that none of the other witnesses except P. W. 2 can be recalled to be further examined for the said purpose. No limitation can be put for adducing rebuttal evidence by the plaintiffs in as much as it cannot be known as to how and in what manner a particular document which has been produced after the closure of the evidence of the plaintiffs would be ultimately used in evidence. It cannot be prejudged as to what type of evidence is necessary for the purpose of rebuttal of the documents admitted by the court after the closure of the evidence by the plaintiffs. I have already indicated in C. R. No. 289/1983 that the plaintiffs should be given an opportunity of adducing the rebuttal evidence either recalling any of the witnesses already examined by him or by adducing witnesses not examined by them, but the rebuttal evidence must be concluded before the defendants begin their evidence.

The revision is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations. There would be no order as to costs.

The suit out of which this revision arises was directed to be disposed of by 30.4. 1983. But due to the pendency of this Civil Revision and some other Civil Revisions the suit could not be disposed of within the stipulated date. I, therefore, direct that the suit must be disposed of by 30. 4. 1984 under intimation to this Court.

In view of the fact that the revisions pending in this Court have been disposed of, the application filed by the opposite parties praying for appointment of a receiver is not required to be disposed of by this Court. The defendants are at liberty to move for any interim order, if so advised in the trial Court.