IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2185 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Versus NIRMAL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS ----------- 2. 12.1.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. This Court would not find any reason emanating from the impugned order for asking the plaintiff petitioner to lead evidence in a partition suit where his specific case is that there has been a previous partition. Mere absence of schedule in the plaint of partition suit in any event can not be a ground for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for asking the defendants to lead their evidence first in view of factum of previous partition. It appears to this Court that there has been a rather casual effort on the part of the court below in passing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider the whole issue as to which party has to lead evidence in the partition suit in view of the pleadings on record as with regard to previous partition. 2 With the aforementioned observation, this application stands allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/