The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting a particular fact, and the onus of proof shifts when the opposite party admits the transaction.

1. The defendants are the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for the relief of partition of the suit property. In that suit, the revision petitioners/defendants filed a written statement, stating that one Mr. Narayana Asari, who was the original owner of the suit property, did not die intestate, as claimed by the plaintiffs and he executed a Will dated 30.03.1991, in favour of the defendants' father, by name Subramaniam and after the father's death, (viz., Subramaniam) the defendants and other legal heirs succeeded to the estate. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no right over the property. Hence, a memo was filed by the plaintiffs before the Court below and sought for a direction, directing the revision petitioner/defendants to begin the case, as they have claimed right over the property under the Will and that application was allowed. Thereafter, the revision petitioners filed a Review Application to review the said order, stating that no opportunity was given to the plaintiffs and that Review Application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the Court below, without properly appreciating the provisions of Order 18, Rule 1 of C.P.C., erred in directing the revision petitioners to begin the case. The learned counsel submitted that as per Order 18, Rule 1, unless, the defendant admits the fact, alleged by the plaintiff in the plaint and also contends that either on point of law or on some additional facts, alleged by the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief, which he seeks, in that case, the defendant has right to begin the case. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case, the revision petitioners/ defendants did not admit the case of the plaintiffs and they denied the allegations made in the plaint, in detail, in their written statement. Therefore, when the defendants did not admit the allegations made in the plaint, the first condition was not satisfied and in that case, the Court below ought not to have directed the defendants to let in evidence first. The learned counsel further submitted that there is difference between burden of proof and onus of proof. Burden of proof lies on the party, who asserts a particular fact and onus of proof by a party would cease, the moment, the opposite party admits the transaction. In this case, burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove their case and that cannot be shifted to the defendants and in support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 5 L.W. 454 in [Bajaj Auto Ltd., Vs. TVS Motor Company Ltd.,] and submitted that the order of the Court below in dismissing the Review Application is liable to be set aside.

4. This Civil Revision Petition is against the order, dismissing the Review Application filed by the revision petitioners. Therefore, the scope of this Civil Revision Petition is limited and this Court cannot exercise power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, while appreciating the judgment rendered in Review Application.

5. Admittedly, based on the memo filed by the plaintiffs, order was passed, directing the revision petitioners to led evidence first. And, that order was not challenged and only Review Application was filed. It is a settled principle of law that Review lies, only when there is an error apparent on the face of record and in the absence of any plea that there was error apparent on the face of record, by directing the revision petitioners to lead evidence, there is no need to entertain the Review Application.

6. It is seen from the plaint that the properties originally belonged to one Narayana Asari and he died on 29.10.1992, leaving behind his two sons, viz., Subramaniam and Govindarajan and one daughter, by name Villasini. The said Govindarajan died on 8.5.2005,