On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 7 submitted that the case set up by the petitioner-plaintiff from the very beginning is that the property in dispute is a public street. Whatever evidence he wanted to lead should have been led in affirmative at the first place. Issues No. 3 and 4 would cover the case set up by the petitionerplaintiff. Merely because the respondents-defendants had led evidence in support of issue No. 7, the onus of which was on them, under the garb of rebuttal evidence, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead evidence, which in fact is the result of producing evidence in support of the issues, the onus of which is on the petitioner-plaintiff. He further submitted that earlier also, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Kaka Singh had filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking a restrain against the respondents from encroaching upon the land in dispute. After service when the defendants in the suit appeared, the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.5.1998. He further submitted that some other residents of the locality had also filed a suit for injunction which was dismissed and the judgment was upheld in appeal, which has already been produced on record before the learned court below as Ex. D-15. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner cannot be granted any opportunity to produce two sale deeds as are sought to be produced by him merely to prove that the land in question is a public street. At this stage, when the entire evidence has already been completed, it is nothing else but letting the petitioner fill in lacuna in the case.
