IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14664 of 2011 1. Rameshwar Pandit @ Gunga S/O Late Raghu Nath Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 2. Bijay Pandit S/O Rameshwar Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 3. Om Prakash Pandit S/O Rameshwar Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 4. Raju Pandit S/O Rameshwar Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 5. Munna Pandit S/O Rameshwar Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 6. Smt. Anju Devi W/O Bijay Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. 7. Smt. Chandrawati Devi W/O Om Prakash Pandit Residing At M/H Chailytola, P.O. Gulzarbag, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Distt. Patna. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna. 2. Prem Nath Prasad S/O Late Mishri Pd. R/O M/H Chailytola, P.S. Alamgunj Patna City, P.O. Guljarbagh And Distt. Patna. 3. Arun Kumar S/O Late Mishri Pd. R/O M/H Chailytola, P.S. Alamgunj Patna City, P.O. Guljarbagh And Distt. Patna. 4. Ajay Kumar S/O Late Mishri Pd. R/O M/H Chailytola, P.S. Alamgunj Patna City, P.O. Guljarbagh And Distt. Patna. 5. Most. Ramdulari Devi W/O Late Mishri Pd. R/O M/H Chailytola, P.S. Alamgunj Patna City, P.O. Guljarbagh And Distt. Patna. ----------- 3 12.09.2011 This application is treated as an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2011 passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 2004 by Sub-Judge-V, Civil Court, Patna City whereby the learned court below directed the defendant petitioner to adduce evidence first in view of the provisions as contained in Order 18 Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and therefore the burden is on 2 the plaintiff to prove his case. In such circumstances, the learned court below could not have directed the petitioner to adduce evidence first. Admittedly, in this case the simple suit for partition was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant –petitioner filed the written statement contending that there had already been khangi batwara between the parties in the year 1969. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned court below found that presumption of jointness is in favour of the plaintiff and the burden is on the defendant petitioner to establish that there had already been partition between the parties in the year 1969. In such view of the mater, the learned court below directed the petitioner to adduce evidence first. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the order passed by the learned court below is in consonance with the provision as contained in Order 18 Rule-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and as such this writ application is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)