JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Heard both sides. By consent revision application heard finally.

Only question involved in this revision application is whether the trial Court was right in directing the defendants to enter the witness-box in the first instance, by the impugned order dated 28th February, 1996. The order is very short which reads thus :

"Heard Shri Hundra for defendants, Shri Bhadu Pote for plaintiff.

There are about 14 issues. Only Issue No. 4 casts burden on the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant in view of certain arrangements they are utilizing the trade mark of the plaintiff. Considering the onus, I direct the defendants to enter in the witness box and plaintiff would be rebutting.

Application is allowed."

The only reason indicated in the said order is that burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove only four issues out of total 14 issues and, therefore, the defendants have been directed to enter the witness-box. According to the non-applicant/plaintiff, the said order was in terms of Order 18, Rule 1. Order 18, Rule 1 reads thus :

"The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document