This revision petition arises from an order of the Munsiff Charaideo, Sonari made on 11. 5. 90 in T.S. No. 88/90.

2. In the suit brought by the plaintiff for eviction of the defendant on the ground that the defendant is defaulter, the plaintiff filed an application for directing the defendant to begin the case on the ground that the defendant has admitted that he is tenant of the plaintiff and subsequently under an agreement of sale the defendant has been occupying the suit premises as his own right. The Munsiff rejected the prayer on the ground that this Court directed the plaintiff to adduce evidence within two months and that the plaintiff should have filed the application earlier. 3. Order 18, Rule 1, CPC provides :

"The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional foots alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he. seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin."

4. Order 18, Rule 2, CPC reads :

"(1) On the day fixed for the hearing of the suit or on any other day to which the hearing is adjourned, she party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce his evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove.

The other party shall then state his case and produce his evidence

(if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case.

The party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case.

(4) *** ***

5. Order 18, Rule 3, CPC runs :

"Where there are several issues, the burden of proving some of which lies on the other party, the party beginning may, at his option, either produce his evidence on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party; and, in the later case, the party beginning may produce evidence on those issues after the other party has produced all his evidence, and the other party may then reply specially on the evidence so produced by the party beginning, but the party beginning will then be entitled to reply generally on the whole case."

A reading of Rules 1, 2 and 3 together shows that the right to begin is to be determined by the rules of evidence, namely burden of proof. The party on whom the burden of proof lies has to begin the case. Therefore, if the burden of proof lies on he plaintiff, it is not proper to examine the witnesses of the defendant in the first instance and then to take the evidence of the plaintiff. The party having right to begin shall "state his case" and "produce his evidence" in support of the issues which he is bound to prove. The expressions "state his case" and "produce his evidence" indicate that right to begin is one thing and producing evidence is another thing. In other words, right to begin is not same thing as adducing evidence and, therefore, right begin does not necessarily include adducing evidence in support of the issues to be proved. It is open to the party having right to begin to say that, although he has right to begin, he would only state his case and would re serve his right to produce rebutting evidence. But the party having right to begin must make the statement before the other side is called upon to adduce evidence.

Let me now examine the case on hand. Order 6, Rule 1, CPC, defines 'pleading' to mean plaint or written statement. Under Order 6, Rule 2 (1), CPC, every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved

As regards the material facts, 'material facts' are facts which if established would give the plaintiff the relief asked for. The test required to be answered is whether the Court can give a direct verdict in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of facts pleaded in his pleading in case the defendant has not appeared to oppose the suit In other wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document