IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7466 of 2011 1. MD.AKHATAR, 2. Md. Mojibur Rahman, 3. Md. Motiur Rahman, All sons of late Md. Ahsan, r/o. Mohalla- Mujahidpur, P.O. Bhagalpur, P.S. + District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. MABARSIR AJAM, 2. Mobakbir Ajam, Both sons of late Abdul Vayum, 3. Bibi Nujahat Khatoon, 4. Bibi Safiya Khatoon, 5. Bibi Najama Khatoon, 6. Bibi Tallat Khatoon, All r/o. Mohalla- Shekhana Kala Town, P.O. Biharsharif, Town- Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. ------------- Respondent 1st Set. 7. Most. Bibi Jarina Khatoon, w/o. Dr. Basir Ahamad, 8. Bibi Naima Khatoon, w/o. Jamil Ahmad, Both are r/o. Mohalla- Banauliya, P.O. Biharsharif, Town Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. ------- Respondent 2nd Set. 9. Most. Bibi Samina Khatoon, w/o. late Abdul Motin, 10. Bibi Seema Jarin, D/o. late Abdul Matin, 11. Sohail Akhtar, 12. Sayeed Anjum, 13. Faiz Azoon, Sl. No.10 to 13 are sons of late Abdul matin, 14. Most. Bibi Maimuna Khatoon, W/o. late Md. Safi, 15. Md. Ekbal Afasar, 16. Md. Arman Afasar, both are sons of Md. Safi. 17. Bibi Safika Farhat, Sl. Nos.9 to 17 are residents of Mohalla, Banauliya Town, P.O. Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. 18. Bibi Mahmuda Khatoon, w/o. late Mustaque Ahamad, r/o. Mohalla- Basarbigha, P.O. Biharshariff, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. 19. Bibi Jamila Khatoon, w/o. Aminuddin, C/o. Md. Salimuddin, R/o. Mohalla: 11C Tati Bagan Road, P.O. Intali, P.S. Intali, Kolkata, West Bengal ----- Respondent 3rd Set. 20. Abdul Salik S/o. late Abdul Rahim, r/o. Mohalla- Shekhana Kala Town, Biharshariff, P.O. 2 Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. ---Respondent 4th Set. 21. Md. Ajim Heyat S/o. late Abdul Alim, R/o. Mohalla- Shekhnakala Town, P.O. + Town- Biharsharif, P.S. Bihar, District- Nalanda. ---- Respondent 5th Set. ----------- 05. 28.04.2011 This writ petition has been filed in the year 2007. By the order impugned dated 04.06.2007 the trial court had directed the defendant to lead evidence first which is contrary to the provisions of C.P.C. The suit under Order 18 Rule 1 was filed by the plaintiffs and it is burden of plaintiffs to prove their case first then the defendant has right to set up their defence and lead the evidence. In the impugned order itself it has been mentioned earlier that the trial-court vide order dated 27.02.2007 had allowed the plaintiff to lead evidence. The said order has not been set aside. Thus, the order suffers from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The plaintiffs shall lead their evidence first in accordance with the provisions of C.P.C. The defects, as pointed out, stand waived out. Mkr. (Prakash Chandra Verma, J)