1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.10.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION PD[MD] No.1463 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION[MD] No.1 of 2011 M/s.Sree Guru Textiles rep. by its partner K.N.Balasubramanian .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs. 1.M/s.Vani International rep. by its partner K.P.Annathurai. 2.K.P.Annadurai 3.Ramalingam .. Respondents/Defendants Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 07.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.661 of 2008 in Original Suit No.80 of 2006 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy ORDER The order dated 07.03.2011 passed in Interlocutory Application No.661 of 2008 in Original Suit No.80 of 2006 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur is being challenged in the present Civil Revision Petition. 2. The revision petitioner herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.80 of 2006 on the file of the Court below so as to pass a money decree on the basis of account, wherein the present respondents have been shown as defendants. During pendency of the same, the present petition has been filed in Interlocutory Application No.661 of 2008 so as to direct the defendants to lead evidence first and the Court below after considering the contentions putforth on either side has dismissed the same. Against the dismissal order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred at the instance of the petitioner/plaintiff as revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has contended that Original Suit No.80 of 2006 has been instituted for getting a money decree on the basis of account, wherein the defendants have clearly admitted the execution of agreement and under the said circumstances, the defendants are bound to lead evidence first and therefore the present petition has been filed, but the Court below without considering the nature of the defence taken on the side of the defendants as well as the averments made in the present petition has erroneously dismissed the same and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has contended that in Original Suit No.80 of 2006, the defendants have made a counter-claim and that itself is not sufficient for the purpose of directing the defendants to lead evidence first on their side and the Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the present petition and therefore the dismissal order passed by the Court below is not liable to be interfered with. 5. As stated earlier, Original Suit No.80 of 2006 has been instituted praying to pass a money decree on the basis of account. It is an admitted fact that in between the plaintiff and defendants, an agreement has come into existence. Only on the basis of agreement, the business transactions have become emerged between the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for getting a money decree on the basis of business transactions, whereas the defendants have made a counter-claim for an amount more than that of the amount claimed in the plaint. Nowhere in the written statement, the defendants have admitted their liability for the amount mentioned in the plaint. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the provision of Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein it has been stated that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. 7. Even from a cursory look of the said provision, it is made clear that if there is any admission with regard to the claim made on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff need not begin his or her evidence first. In the instant case, as stated earlier, nowhere in the written statement, the defendants have admitted the claim made on the side of the plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the provision of Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not at all applicable. 8. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised on either side has rightly dismissed the petition and in view of the discussion made earlier, this Court has not found any error in the order passed by the Court below and altogether the present Civil Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. In fine, this Civil Revision Petition deserves dismissal and accordingly is dismissed without costs and the order passed in Interlocutory Application No.661 of 2008 in Original Suit No.80 of 2006 by the Additional Sub Court, Karur is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. smn Sd/- Assistant Registrar[Records] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To The Additional Subordinate Judge, Karur. +1 cc to Mr.M.KarthikeyaVenkatachalapathy, Advocate SR.No.36460. C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.1463 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 Dated:20.10.2011 3P/3C RPB 08.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/