Provisions for the order of arguments in court are enabling rather than mandatory, allowing judicial discretion on the sequence based on case circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. The petitioner/original plaintiff impugns order dated 16.12.2024 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrirampur below Exhibit-197 in Regular Civil Suit No.108/2013, by which prayer of petitioner/plaintiff to direct defendants to conclude argument before plaintiff has been rejected.

3. The plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.108/2013 before Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrirampur claiming relief of declaration, perpetual injunction and fixation of boundaries. The defendants appeared in suit and refuted contents of plaint. Eventually, issues were framed. The plaintiff recorded his evidence and filed Evidence Close Pursis dated 07.07.2024 below Exhibit-185. Thereafter, respondents/defendants recorded their evidence and filed Evidence Close Pursis dated 07.08.2024 below Exhibit-189.

4. At this stage, petitioner filed application below Exhibit-197 contending that petitioner has recorded his evidence first. Thereafter, evidence of respondents is recorded. The matter is at the stage of arguments. Therefore, as per provisions of sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure, defendants who have closed their evidence last in order are required to conclude arguments. Thereafter, plaintiff would have right to put his final submissions on entire case. Accordingly, directions were sought against defendants to conclude arguments before plaintiff. The learned Trial Court rejected petitioner’s contentions observing that there is no mandate under law to direct defendants to conclude arguments first. The defendants cannot be compelled to begin with their arguments reserving rights of plaintiff to argue on whole case. According to Trial Court, application tendered by plaintiff is an attempt to protract litigation.

5. Mr. Tambe, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner invites attention of this Court to Rule 2 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure and contends that plaintiff, who has right to begin once states his case and produce his evidence in support of issues, then other party/defendant is under obligation to state his case and produce his evidence and address Court generally on whole case. In last, plaintiff/party beginning may reply generally on whole case. According to Mr. Tambe, defendants have recorded their evidence after plaintiff. Therefore, defendants are under obligation to argue matter first. The plaintiff can reply thereafter generally on whole case. He would, therefore, urge that application tendered before Trial Court at Exhibit-197 was in tune with aforesaid provisions, which ought to have been allowed. In support of his contentions he relies upon judgment of Single Judge of this Court in case of Gajanan Dhondu Dalvi Vs. Trishul Construction Company and another , [1995 (1) Mh.L.J. 695.] and judgment in case of Sharanappa Alias Sharanabasappa Tipama Vs. Veerappa R. Maranbassari, [ 1968 Mh.L.J. 629 .]

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhosale, learned Advocate appearing for respondents submits that provisions of Rule 2 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure are not mandatory. According to him, sub- clauses (2) and (3) of Rule 2 of Order XVIII are enabling provisions and no party has right to seek direction from Court against other party to argue matter first, in point of time, converse to chronology of right to begin. In support of his contentions he relies upon judgments of Supreme Court of India in cases of Jami Venkata Suryaprabha and Another Vs. Tarini Prasad Naya