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 the decision in Shankerlals case and over-ruled the decision in Harjis case.

6. A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties. Their contention is that in view of the decision of this court in Purohit Swarup Narain vs. Gopinath(4) (1953 RLW, 629.) no revision lies on the question of wrong allocation of burden of proof as the matter can be raised in appeal, under sec. 105 C.P.C., from the decree that may be finally pressed in the suit. Learned counsel for the applicants, however, contend that the matter cannot be raised in appeal from the decree, under sec. 105, and the decision in Purohit Swarup Narains case, therefore, would not bar the revision.

7. We are of opinion that wrong allocation of burden of proof it is likely to result in prejudice to the party on whom the burden is wrongly put and is, therefore, likely to affect the decision of the suit on the merits. This is a proposition which cannot, in our opinion, be gainsaid. Once, therefore, it is clear that wrong allocation of burden of proof is likely to result in prejudice to the person on whom the burden is wrongly put and is likely to affect the decision of the case on the merits, Purohit Swarup Narains case will fully apply, as the applicants can take a ground under sec. 105, C.P.C., from the decree that may be finally passed. No revision would therefore lie to the High Court merely because burden of proof was wrongly allocated in the sense that a wrong person was required to begin leading evidence on the particular issue on which the burden was wrongly allocated. The argument for the applicants is that by placing the burden wrongly on them they have been required to lead their evidence first with the result that their of leading evidence after knowing the evidence of the other side has been lost. It is urged that this right of leading evidence after knowing the evidence of the other side is a valuable right on appeal from the decree that may be finally passed. Our attention was invited to certain observations in Bir Babu vs. Raghubar Babu (1) (A.I.R. 1947 Patna, 469) where it was said that "the correct placing of onus of proof is a vital point of procedure and an incorrect placing of the onus may, therefore, amount to material irregularity. The effect of requiring the defendant to lead evidence seriously prejudices him by assuming without proof that Hindu Law governs the family of the parties and deprives him of the very valuable right of adducing evidence in rebuttal of that adduced by the plaintiff." It was further observed that "the prejudicial effect of the procedure is not capable of remedy and the High Court ought to interfere in revision".

8. These observations were relied upon in Thakur Bharat Singhs case (2) (1951 R.L.W. 507.). It may, however, be pointed out tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document