CRP 265/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged two orders, one dated 05.04.2010 and the other dated 14.05.2010, passed by the learned Munsiff N o.1, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Suit No.325/2009. By order dated 05.04.2010, the learned Munsiff has directed the defendan ts to adduce evidence first, as the defendants have pleaded in the written state ment that the plaintiff has allowed them to stay in the suit land. By order date d 14.05.2010, the learned Munsiff has virtually reiterated the order dated 05.04 .2010 by rejecting the defendants’ application filed praying for allowing them t o cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness first. It appears from the impugned orders passed that the learned Court below has directed the defendants to adduce evidence first, taking recourse of the pro visions contained in Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC, on the ground that the defen dants in the written statement have pleaded that they are permissive occupier. The suit filed by the present respondent is for declaration of right, ti tle, interest and also for eviction and for permanent injunction. According to t he plaintiff, though a plot of land measuring 7 lechas was gifted to the defenda nts, they are unauthorizedly occupying the suit land. The said plea has been ref uted by the defendants in the written statement stating inter alia that they are permissive occupier. Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC provides that the plaintiff has the right to begin. However, it has an exception and the defendants on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated therein, has the right to begin. The defendant would have the right to begin, if he admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff in the plain t and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged b y the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks. As noticed above, the plaintiff though claimed that the defendants are t he unauthorized occupants in respect of the suit land, the same has been denied by the defendants in the written statement by pleading that they are permissive occupier. To claim the right to begin, the defendants have to admit the facts al leged by the plaintiff, which is not the case in hand. As noticed above, the lea rned Court below without considering that aspect of the matter, has directed tha t the defendants to adduce evidence. The question whether in a case though the d efendants have the right to begin, they can be compelled to lead evidence first, however, in view of the aforesaid position, has not been gone into in the prese nt petition. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 05.04.2010 and 14.05.201 0 are set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Co urt below on 11.11.2010. The revision petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.