HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP NO.4888 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 30-9-2011 passed in IA No.500 of 2011 in OS No.33 of 1999 by the IX Addl. Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Court below. 3. OS No.33 of 1999 on the file of IX Addl. Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is a suit for partition. The present IA and memo are filed under Order 18, Rule 1 and 3 CPC seeking a direction to defendants 2, 4 to 9 to lead evidence by giving liberty to the petitioner to lead his evidence after the evidence of the defendants is closed. Originally the plaintiff no.1 withdrew the suit and Court dismissed the suit on 1-5- 2007 as withdrawn. The petitioner filed a petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but the same was also dismissed on 11-5-2007. The petitioner thereafter preferred revision being CRP N.2876 of 2007 and this Court allowed the same and restored the suit to its original file. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application to transpose him from D-3 to as 2nd plaintiff and the same was allowed and amended plaint was also filed and the contesting defendants also filed their additional written statement and the same was adopted by other defendants. It is stated that the suit is posted for trial. While matter stood thus, the petitioner filed additional written statement on 14-12-2004 alleging that the family arrangement created by defendant no.2 was done by playing fraud on him by misusing the blank signed paper and, therefore, the defendants have to first lead evidence. 4. Having heard the learned counsel and having noted the contents of the matter, it is no doubt true that the contesting defendants have pleaded the family arrangement dated 12-3-1995 and their case is that by virtue of the same, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief of partition, but in view of the allegation of the petitioner that the family arrangement was created by defendant no.2 by playing fraud on him by misusing the blank signed papers the onus is on the petitioner to prove the same. The settled proposition of law and also as observed by the Court below the party who pleads fraud must lead evidence to prove such fraud and hence the onus probandi is on the petitioner. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the civil revision petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The suit is of the year 1999, and therefore, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 12-12-2011 Nrg.