WANCHOO, C.J.—These are connected revisions against orders of trial court framing certain issues in a form in which the burden of proof has been placed on the applicants. The applicants contend that the burden of proof has been wrongly placed on them and should have been placed on the opposite parties. They have, therefore, come in revision to this court.

2. These cases were referred to a Full Bench on the point whether revision lies in such a matter, particularly because there were conflicting decisions of this court on this question.

3. The first of such decisions is Shankarlal vs. Deenanath (1) (1950 RLW, 249.) in which a learned Single Judge held that wrong allocation of burden of proof was a material irregularity and would justify interference in revision.

4. Then followed Harji vs. Hasti Singh(2) (1951 RLW, 1.) in which another learned Judge held that it would be after the final decision of the case that wrong allocation of burden of proof would afford a good ground for interference by the High Court in revision.

5. The last case in this series is Thakur Bharat Singh vs. Thakur Raj Singh (3) (1951 RLW, 507.). This was decided by a Division Bench and the learned Judges approved th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document