This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by an Order dated 1-11-2004 made in O.S.No.641 of 1990 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada.

2. Defendants 4 and 5 (sic.6) in the suit filed by the 151 respondent are the petitioners in this revision. Respondent NO.1 laid a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Defendants 4 and 6 filed written statement supporting the claim of the plaintiff. After the plaintiffs evidence was closed, defendants 2, 4 (sic.3) and 5 adduced their evidence and it was also closed. Though defendants 4 and 6 supported the case of the plaintiff, after the evidence of the contesting defendants was closed, they wanted to lead their evidence. At that stage, defendant NO.1 filed a memo praying the Court to pass necessary Orders for disentitling defendants 4 and 6 to adduce evidence. It is stated by the 1st defendant that if the petitioner-defendants 4 and 6 wanted to adduce evidence, they could have adduced evidence even prior to adducing of evidence by contesting defendants. Since petitioner defendants 4 and 6 are supporting the case of the plaintiff, they have no right to adduce evidence after the closure of the evidence of the contesting defendants. Petitioners filed objections saying that the Memo is misconceived. The law provides a right to the parties to lead evidence at any stage and as such, the memo is liable to be rejected. After hearing both parties, the Court below upheld the objection raised by the contesting defendants and recorded a finding that petitioner-defendants 4 and 6 have no right to adduce evidence at that stage. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, strenuously contended that the Court below has grossly erred in not exercising jurisdiction vested in it on proper lines. It also failed to see that the 1st defendant ought to have raised an objection when the matter was posted for his evidence that the evidence of the petitioner-defendants 4 and 6 has to be adduced first and thereafter, his evidence has to be recorded. When no objection was taken at the time of leading their evidence by the contesting defendants, they cannot have any objection when defendants 4 and 6 were sought to be examined in their due turn. He also submitted that the procedure also can be made applicable with retrospective effect.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the same stand as was taken in the Court below and supported the impugned Order.

5. The question whether the provisions of the amended Civil Procedure Code or the provisions, which stood prior to amendment on 1-7-2002, are applicable to the present case has no relevance, since sub-rule (4) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII, which has been omitted by the Amendment Act, vis-a-vis the same as that of the Explanation appended to Rule 2 of Order XVIII has been added by Madras Amendment, which is adopted by A.P. High Court, which reads as under:

"Explanation: Nothing in this rule shall affect the jurisdiction of the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing to direct any party to examine any witnesses at any stage."

Thus, the only amendment made is adding of sub-rules 3-A, 3-B, 3-C and 3-D in Order XVIII, which has no relevance for our purpose.

6. Rule 2 of Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Code would make it clear that the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues, which he is bound to prove. Generally speaking, the rule is that the plaintiff has to prove his claim by positive proof, because the Court has to see whether there is proof of claim or not before enquiring into the truth or otherwise of the defence. Further, as seen from Explanation added to Rule 2, which is made applicable to Andhra Pradesh also, the Court for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct any party to examine any w