1. This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12.6.2013 passed on Memo in O.S. No. 28 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram. The petitioner is the defendant and the respondent is plaintiff in O.S. No. 28 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale dated 09.7.2000 and consequential perpetual injunction. The defendant filed written statement denying the very nature of the document dated 09.7.2000. The plaintiff filed Memo before the trial court with a prayer to direct the defendant to begin the trial for which the defendant filed objections. However, the trial Court over-ruled the objections and directed the defendant to begin the trial. Hence, the defendant filed the present revision petition.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is four fold: (1) the finding of the trial court that the defendant admitted execution of the document, therefore he has to begin the trial, at the first instance, is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable; (2) when the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff in respect of some of issues, the trial court ought not to have directed the defendant to begin the trial; (3) the trial court failed to consider that the defendant has been disputing the very nature of the document dated 09.7.2000 and (4) Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC confers a right on the defendant to begin the trial if he/she so wishes and there is no obligation on the part of the defendant to begin the trial. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that having admitted the execution of the document dated 09.7.2000, the burden of proof lies on the defendant to establish that the said document is not legally enforceable. He further submitted that the burden of proof lies on the defendant on the main issue; therefore he has to begin the trial. He also submitted that there are no grounds, which warrant interference with the impugned order passed by the trial court.

4. The edifice of civil suit is built on pleadings. Pleadings form bedrock in a civil suit. Order VI of CPC deals with pleadings. The word 'pleading' encompasses in it all material facts, which give rise for cause of action. Pleading is nothing but a precise statement of material facts. It is the primary duty of the plaintiff to plead all material facts and if such facts are proved, he is entitled for the relief sought. In view of the provisions of Order VII of CPC, a duty is cast on the defendant to specifically deny or traverse the material facts pleaded by the plaintiff. Mere or general denial of the pleadings by the defendant itself is not sufficient to demolish the case of the plaintiff. The defendant has to specifically deny the material facts pleaded in the plaint in order to substantiate his/her stand. It is needless to say that any amount of oral or documentary evidence, without a pleading, is of no avail.

5. Order XIV of CPC deals with framing of the issues. While framing the issues the court has to keep in mind the scope of Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC. The underlying object of Order XIV of CPC is mainly to focus on the lis involved in the suit, which is the basis for framing of the issues for adjudication, thereby to enable the parties to adduce evidence to substantiate their stand. A perusal of Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC clearly demonstrates that, as a general rule, the plaintiff has the right to begin the suit, exception is the right of the defendant to begin. Who has to begin the suit depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There is no obligation on the part of the defendant to begin the suit first. Though Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC does not obligate the defendant to begin the trial, the defendant has to come into the witness box at the first instance,