THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 94 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2010 in I.A. No.204 of 2010 in O.S. No.113 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court- cum-VI Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2. The brief facts are, petitioner/plaintiff filed Original Suit No.113 of 2007 before the court below for partition of the schedule properties on the ground that there is ancestral nucleus existing and the properties are held to be joint. The respondents/defendants filed written statement stating that there was earlier partition and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for partition. The trial court framed the following issues for trial: (i) whether there was earlier partition as pleaded by defendant Nos. 3 and 4? (ii) whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for? and (iii) to what relief?. Before commencement of trial, the present application is filed by the plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) praying to direct the defendants 2 to 4 to adduce evidence first, before commencement of the evidence on the plaintiff side in the suit. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned order, on the ground that the said provision has no application to the facts of the present suit and the plaintiff is not entitled for the direction as prayed for. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Rule 3 of Order XVIII CPC provides that where there are several issues in a suit, the burden of proving some of which lies on the party who has right to begin and the remaining on the other party, the party which has right to begin may in his option, either produce his evidence generally on those issues or reserve it by way of answer to the evidence produced by the other party. This provision is subject to Rule 1. Both Rules have to be read together in juxta position as they have got to be. Whether the plaintiff should lead evidence first or the defendant should be, has to be determined in accordance with Rule 1 which provides for right to begin. 5. The main issue to be decided in the suit is ‘whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for?’ Unless the plaintiff discharges that burden, the question of directing the defendants 2 to 4 to adduce their evidence first with regard to their plea of earlier partition, does not arise. However, the plaintiff can as well seek for adducing rebuttal evidence with regard to the earlier partition after the defendants 2 to 4 let in evidence. But, the primary issue has to be decided basing on the evidence that may be adduced by the plaintiff. Unless that burden is discharged, the plea to direct the defendants to adduce evidence to prove the plea taken by them, cannot be accepted. The trial Court rightly passed the impugned order and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 28.1.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 94 OF 2011 28.1.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 94 OF 2011 28.1.2011 Between: Y.Jyothi …Petitioner And P.Veera Reddy & others …Respondent