1 WP 5299.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5299 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M.M.Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. ............................ CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 20/07/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner is the original defendant. After the evidence was closed by either of the parties, the plaintiff moved an application purportedly under the provisions of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure [ For short, ‘ the Code ’ ] seeking directions against the defendant to begin the arguments first. The said application is allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant has filed the present petition. 2. Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court while passing the impugned order, has misread Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code. The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 to 3 of the Code will have to be read harmoniously and in conjunction with each other. 2 WP 5299.2011 Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code can not be read in isolation. The said provision does not mandate that the party who has led his evidence last, shall begin the arguments first. According to the learned counsel, the word used is ‘ may ’ and the title of the provisions itself deals with right to begin. It is not a duty cast on the party to begin his arguments. 3. The provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 to 3 of the Code are unambiguous. When the provisions are unambiguous, the literal meaning shall be given to the said provisions. From the bare perusal of the said provision, it is manifest that the party, who has produced his evidence subsequently may address the Court generally on the whole case and the party beginning may then reply generally on the whole case. In view of the unambiguous language of the said provision, there is no scope for any other interpretation. 4. In light of the above, the order impugned can not be faulted with. The Writ Petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5299.2011 3 WP 5299.2011