( 1 ) THIS revision application arises out of insolvency proceedings. After a firm of Gordhandas Bapubhai was declared insolvent The receivers gave an application stating that a sale deed executed by the insolvent firm in favour of two persons who are opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in those proceedings was nominal and fraudulent The receivers also contended that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 paid the money to the insolvent firm for being paid to the partners of the firm who are opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings. It was the case of the receivers that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 in those proceedings were partners of the insolvent firm.

( 2 ) AFTER the receivers completed the evidence the learned Judge passed an order stating that opponents Nos. 3 to 6 should lead their evidence first before opponents Nos. 1 and 2 were asked to lead their evidence. It is this order that is challenged in revision. It is contended in revision that opponents Nos. 1 and 2 should lead their evidence first before opponents Nos. 3 to 6 are asked to lead their evidence.

( 3 ) ON the question of right to begin and the question of leading evidence we have provisions in Order 18 Rule 1 C. P. Code which reads a