Rajindar Sachar, J.
1. This is a defendant's revision against the order of the lower appellate court dated 13th December, 1972 by which he has remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision.
2. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,099.75 on the allegation that the defendant-petitioner had executed a pronote for Rs. 1,801/- in his favour. The balance of the amount was made up of interest. The defendant countered the allegation and maintained that she had neither executed the promissory rote and that nothing was due from her. The folio-Ming three issues were framed:
1. Whether the defendant executed the suit pronote of Rs. 1801/- in favour of the plaintiff?
2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in the affirmative whether the suit pronote is without consideration?
3. What shall be the relief?
3. The burden of proof of issue No. I was placed on the plaintiff, while it was placed on the defendant with regard to issue No. 2.
4. The plaintiff led his evidence and examined only himself and after the conclusion of his evidence on 4th August, 1971 filed an application before the trial court stating that he had led evidence on the issue, the burden at which was on him, but that he reserved the right to, lead evidence on the issue, the burden of which was on the defendant. This application was rejected by the trial court on the same day. The trial court relied on Motibhai Probhubhai v. Umedchand Kasalchand AIR 1956 Sau. 52 and took the view that the plaintiff should have reserved the option before beginning his evidence and as he was wanting to reserve the option after he had given his evidence, it was not permissible in law. Thereafter the case proceeded and the trial court found that neither the pronote had been executed by the defendant, nor was the consideration proved and dismissed the suit by the judgment 4th October. 1971. I he plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judges Pali. In appeal, the lower appellate court has held that the refusal by the trial court to permit the plaintiff to lead evidence on issue No. 2 has caused material prejudice and has remanded the case to the trial court to decide it afresh. The defendant is aggrieved and has come to this Court. It may be mentioned and as was noticed by the learned lower appellate court, that this Court in Inderjeetsingh v. Maharaj Raghunathsingh has taken a view different from that of Motibhai's case, supra. According to Jagat Narayan, J., as his Lordship then was, Order 18 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not prescribe the stage at which the party leading evidence should apprise the Court of its exercising the option under Order 18 Rule 3, and that the above rule is sufficiently complied with if the party in question states before the other party begins its evidence that it is reserving its right to adduce evidence in rebuttal on the other issue. This it can do only if it has actually not led any evidence on those issues. His Lordship specifically dissented from the view taken in Motibhai's case, supra. It is apparent that I arn bound by the view taken by this Court in Inderjeetsingh's case, supra, and, therefore, the Saurashtra decision is of no assistance to Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The counsel, however, wanted to invoke the observations of Jagat Narayan, J., to the effect that the option can be reserved only if the party has actually led any evidence. He further seeks to contend that the plaintiff had stated in his examination-in-chief that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 1,801/- in cash to the defendant under promissory note exhibit-1, and, therefore, this should be taken to be that the plaintiff had led evident e on issue No. 2 and thus could not have reserved an option. 'The lower appellate court has noticed this very argument, but has rejected it on the ground that an application had specifically been filed in which the plaintiff had definitely indicated that he was reserving his op ion to lead evidence on issue No. 2 and that it could not be said that the plaintiff had led evidence earlier. This view, lower appellate court has taken on a consideration of the various circumstances and sitting in revision, it is not permissible for me to re-appraise and re-assess the circumstances.
5. I find no error of jurisdiction and, therefore, decline to interfere in these proceedings.
6. The result is that the Revision is hereby dismissed. As there is no presence on the other side, there shall be no order as to costs.