The trial court has the authority to frame additional issues and shift the burden of proof based on admissions made by the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside/modifying the order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar vide which application filed by the plaintiff/respondent for reframing issue No.1 was dismissed, however an additional issue i.e., issue No.1A was framed and the defendant/petitioner was directed to first lead evidence over the additional issue.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, since the suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent thus, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to first prove her case by leading evidence and it is only thereafter that the defendant should have been called upon to prove his defence. It is submitted that application filed in the present case by the plaintiff was only for reframing of issue No.1, which aspect had been rejected by the trial Court but after rejecting the said aspect, the trial Court had framed additional issue No.lA, although no specific prayer with respect to framing of the said additional issue No.lA was made by the respondent-plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a perusal of the plaint would show that in para 3 of the plaint, the plaintiff had made reference to return of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by the petitioner/defendant on 28.03.2012 and also with respect to defendant paying compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum and had not stated that any other amount had been paid by the petitioner to the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. It is submitted that whereas the defendant/petitioner in the written statement had taken a specific plea that the entire amount of loan had been repaid and on 21.04.2019, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendant to Pushpa Devi Gupta and balance amount of Rs.7,35,000/- was also paid by the defendant/petitioner to Pushpa Devi Gupta on 18.05.2019. It is submitted that the said amount included the aspect of interest and the entire amount due to the deceased Pushpa Devi Gupta by the petitioner had been paid to her and it is for the said reason that she did not file any suit although she had died on 05.05.2021 i.e., after almost a period of two years from the date of complete payment. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the impugned order is against law and deserves to be set aside and it is the respondent-plaintiff who should first be directed to lead evidence in support of her suit in terms of Order 18 Rule 1 CPC.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the present revision petition and has submitted that impugned order had been rightly passed and has further submitted that once the petitioner in his written statement had admitted the fact that loan had been taken by him and his plea was that loan had been returned on specific dates with respect to specific amount, then in the said circumstances, it is the petitioner-defendant who should first lead evidence to show that the amount has been returned. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the impugned order has been rightly passed and deserves to be upheld.

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to be upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons stated hereinafter.

5. A perusal of the plaint (Annexure P-1) would show that the respondent-Neelam Gupta had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.17,25,051/-along with compound interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.2022 till actual realisation by creating charge and sale o