JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S.C. Ghose, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. P.C. Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 17

2. In this writ application, defendants 3 and 6 are the petitioners. They have challenged the order dated 20.5.2008 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in C.S. No. 148 of 2006 whereby he accepted the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 18, Rule 1, C.P.C. and directed the defendants to adduce evidence first.

3. In T.S. No. 539 of 1990 filed by the present opposite party No. 1 -plaintiff, the defendants had filed their written-statement stating regarding the previous partition of the suit property. Said suit was decreed and plaintiff's right, title and possession was declared on compromise between the parties and in the present suit, the present opposite party No. 1 prayed for declaring the aforesaid decree as null and void as it had been obtained by practicing fraud and he had not put his signature in the said compromise petition and had also not executed the Vakalatnama.

4. The law is well settled that a person who sets the law in motion and seeks a relief before the Court, must necessaril