Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-III, Begusarai in Title Suit No. 163 of 2002, whereby and whereunder the petition filed by the plaintiff i.e. the opposite parties 1st set herein under Order 18 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been allowed and the defendant no. 1 i.e. the petitioner herein has been directed to adduce the evidence first.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set are stated to have filed a title partition suit bearing Title Suit No. 163 of 2002, before the learned Court of Sub-Judge-III, Begusarai inter alia praying therein for passing a preliminary decree for partition of 1/4th share of the plaintiff in the Schedule-B property of the plaint as also for carving out separate patti of the plaintiff whereupon preliminary decree be made final and the plaintiff be put in possession of the suit property by the process of the Court. The defendant No.1- petitioner herein and others had appeared in the aforesaid suit and filed their written statement, controverting the facts stated/alleged in the plaint and after settlement of the issues, the case was fixed for adducing evidence, however, it is the case of the petitioner herein that the plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set took several adjournments for adducing evidence but failed to do so and finally after a lapse of about eight years filed a petition on 19.03.2010, under Order 18 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia praying therein to direct the defendants to adduce evidence first. The petitioner had filed a rejoinder to the said petition dt. 19.03.2010, stating therein that the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case on account of the defendant-petitioner and others having not admitted the averments and allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiffs, however, the Ld. Court of Sub-Judge-III, Begusarai by the impugned order dated 19.08.2010 has allowed the aforesaid petition filed by plaintiffs-opposite parties 1st set & has directed the defendant-petitioner & others to adduce evidence first.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has referred to the plaint, more particularly paragraphs no. 3 to 5, which are reproduced herein below: –

“3. That there was registered partition dated 1.8.1987 between Baidyanath Singh and his sons on the first part and Late Biso Singh and his sons on the other part by which registered partition all the ancestral property as also the lands purchased by Baidyanath Singh and late Biso Singh were partitioned and separate and exclusive pattis of the two branches were carved out by which Schedule-I of the partition deed was allotted to the share of Baidyanath Singh and Schedule-B of the partition dated 01.08.1987 was allotted to Biso Singh the late father of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 which Schedule-B of the partition deed also described in Schedule-B of the plaint is the subject matter of the partition in this suit and since this suit is for partition of the share of the property of Late Biso Singh, therefore arraying of parties of the heirs of Baidyanath Singh and his properties is not at all necessary to give in this suit.

4. That it is relevant to mention that some properties exclusively purchased by Late Biso Singh from his own income in the names of his two sons who were then minors whose alias names were mentioned in two sale deeds dt. 22.1.1974 and 10.8.71 over which properties Late Biso Singh remained in exclusive possession along with his two sons the plaintiff and defendant no.1 which is described as item no. 2 in Schedule-B property of the plaint, that being the joint family property of the parties and over all the Schedule-B properties, the plaintiff have 1/4th share and defendant no. 1 has 1/4th share a