The petitioner herein is the defendant in Exhibit-P1 Original Suit O.S.No.119 of 2015 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi. The said suit filed at the instance of the respondent herein (plaintiff) is the one seeking specific performance of an agreement for sale said to have been entered between the parties. The grievance of the petitioner is that now the trial court has taken the stand as reflected in the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 3.8.2017, that in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is for the defendant in the suit to begin the evidence. According to the petitioner/defendant, the reasonings given by the trial court as reflected in the impugned Exhibit-P4 order dated 3.8.2017 are fully overlooking the ambit and scope of Order XVIII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It is in the light of these aspects that the petitioner has filed the instant Original Petition (Civil) seeking the invocation of this Court’s visitorial jurisdiction of superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers :

“(1) To call for the records leading to Ext.P4 order, passed by the Hon’ble Munsiff-Magistrate, Pattambi, in O.S.No.119/2015, dated 3.8.2017, and may be pleased to set aside the same on a finding that it is illegal, in the interest of justice.

and

(2) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant.”

2. Heard Sri. Ravi K.Pariyarath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant and Sri. Santheep Ankarath, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

3. The respondent/plaintiff seeks specific performance pertaining to the agreement for sale which has been produced as document No.1 dated 1.1.2015 along with Exhibit-P1 plaint. It is stated to be an agreement executed between the parties on 31.12.2014 and registered as document No.3 of 2015 before the SRO, Pattambi, and the date of registration is shown as 1.1.2015. The impugned order at Exhibit-P4 dated 3.8.2017 reads as follows :

“The suit is for specific performance of contract based on a registered agreement. The defendant is denying execution of the agreement. But the signature is admitted. He alleges cheating by the defendant and says that stamp paper was given to the plaintiff in another transaction. Since it is a registered document, the defendant has to prove his case as the document is prima facie admissible in evidence. Only thereafter comes the case of payment of advance and willingness to complete the contract on the part of the plaintiff. Hence the defendant has to begin the evidence. For evidence. Defendant prays time. Call on 8.8.17.”

The case of the respondent/plaintiff is that the suit for specific performance has been filed on the basis of the said agreement for sale which is a registered document. It is contended by the respondent/plaintiff that though the petitioner/defendant has denied the execution of the agreement in Exhibit-P2 written statement, he has admitted the signature therein. It is in the light of these aspects that the trial court has taken the view that though the petitioner/defendant alleges cheating by the defendant in getting his signature in the said agreement and that the stamp paper was given to the plaintiff in another transaction, etc. The trial court has taken the view that since it is a registered document, the defendant has to prove his case as the document is prima facie admissible in evidence and that only thereafter comes the case of payment of advance and willingness to complete the contract on the part of the plaintiff, etc. On this basis the trial court has taken the view that it is for the defendant to begin the evidence in the facts and circumstances of this case and had accordingly called upon the defendant to adduce his evidence. It is this order at Exhibit-P8 rendered on 3.8.2017 which is under challenge in this O.P.(C).

4. The scope and ambit of Order XVIII Rule 1 of C.P.C. is to be examined in the