IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1464 of 2006 JAGAT NARAIN PRASAD & ANR Versus SMT.RAM DULARI & ORS ----------- 2 27.11.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. Who would be required to lead the evidence in a suit, is not dependent on the whims of the parties but has to be decided by the court taking into account pleadings in the suit. The evidence is required to be led only in relation to the lis in question on which issues are framed after perusal of the respective stand of the parties in their pleadings. Obviously, such issues are also framed in the light of the relief claimed in the suit. This being the settled principle in law when its application is made to the facts of the present case, this Court would not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. All that has been done in the impugned order is that it has rejected the prayer of the petitioners-defendant- second set in an eviction suit for being allowed to lead oral evidence. Counsel for the petitioners is quite emphatic that once the petitioners in capacity of defendants second set were impleaded party they could not have been precluded from leading their independent evidence. This Court on perusal of the relief in the plaint, a 2 copy whereof has been furnished by the petitioners to this Court would find that the plaintiffs-opposite parties have sought a decree for eviction in their favour and against the defendant-Ist set who is said to be the tenant. Again a decree for realization of Rs. 8800/- has been sought which has to be paid by the defendant-Ist set to the plaintiff. This Court is thus of the view that for either of the aforementioned relief there would be no requirement for leading of evidence by the petitioners who are described to be the joint owners of this suit property. The apprehension of the petitioners that once the decree is passed in terms of the relief prayed in the suit and the vacant possession of the suit property is given to the plaintiffs, affecting the right of the petitioners is also wholly misconceived. The plaintiffs-opposite parties in the pleadings have categorically stated that they are in joint possession with the petitioners and therefore, if any order of eviction is passed the possession thereof would again remain joint as per the case of the plaintiffs- opposite parties. Thus on this ground also the petitioners cannot seek a right to lead evidence. This court is thus satisfied that there was no requirement for the petitioners being allowed to lead their evidence and that being so, the Court below has 3 committed no error in passing the impugned order. This Civil Revision application being wholly misconceived is hereby dismissed. Bibhash (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)