APHC010272512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the fourth day of September, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition Between: J.Murali Mohan Goud and J.Chandra Mohan Goud and Others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. T.Lakshmi Padmaja Counsel for the respondents: 1. V. S. K. Rama Rao The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the fourth day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.1458 of 2025 ...Petitioner J.Chandra Mohan Goud and Others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: T.Lakshmi Padmaja Counsel for the respondents: V. S. K. Rama Rao following: [3311] Thursday, the fourth day of September, two thousand and twenty five ...Petitioner ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1458 of 2025 ORDER: This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 02.01.2025, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.202 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, at Adoni, filed by the plaintiff under Order XVIII, Rule 1(1) and Section 151 C.P.C. to direct the respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 to commence the trial. 2. The suit was filed for partition. The plaintiff filed affidavit in chief examination as PW1 on 16.12.2019. The suit was posted to 02.01.2020 for marking of the documents and for cross-examination of PW1. At that juncture, documents at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 were objected for marking as they were not legible. Later, due to Covid, the suit was adjourned several times. On 08.04.2021, the respondent No.1 changed his counsel and then filed petition in I.A.No.98 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint. The said petition was withdrawn on 08.02.2024. Thus, the suit was again posted to 16.02.2024 for marking of the documents and cross-examination of PW1. It was adjourned from time to time till 30.08.2024. On that day, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.202 of 2024 on the ground that the burden is on the respondent No.1 to prove his defence as pleaded by him in the written statement that the partition was affected during the period 1980-81 and that the plaintiff has right to lead rebuttal evidence. 3. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.1 by filing counter stating that the petition was intended to drag on the case; that the plaintiff was aware of the issues framed in the suit, yet filed affidavit in chief examination way back on 16.12.2019 and the plaintiff failed to comply the direction of the trial Court to file legible copies of the 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1458 of 2025 documents at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 of the affidavit in chief examination, but filed this petition. 4. After hearing both the parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the defendants have taken a plea of oral partition and the plea can be established even by way of cross examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses and that the burden lies on the plaintiff to commence the trial and place evidence in support of his pleadings and the onus shifts to the defendants to establish their contention. It was also found that once the plaintiff enters the witness box and affirm his contention on oath, then, the defendants are bound to cross-examine the plaintiff to refute the evidence and the defendants may establish their case by eliciting any facts in support of their version from the plaintiff and his witnesses and in such an event, there is no need for the defendants to enter into the witness box and therefore, the plaintiff having filed affidavit in chief examination is not entitled to take a U turn seeking the relief in the present petition. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a suit for partition, when the respondent No.1 admitted that the properties are joint family properties but pleaded that properties were partitioned, it is for him to establish the same and therefore, he has to commence the trial. In this regard, the learned counsel referred to Order XVIII, Rule 1 C.P.C which reads as follows: “1. Right to begin.—The plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1458 of 2025 plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin.” 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition and further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jami Venkata Suryaprabha Vs. Tarini Prasad Nayak 1 , wherein at paragraphs No.16, 17 & 18, it was held as follows: “16. Under Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff but contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, it is the defendant who gets the right to begin. 17. Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure in terms speaks of the 'hearing' of a suit and not the trial of the suit. A court is concerned with the trial of a suit from the time when it is instituted. The hearing of a suit is only a part of the trial of the suit. The determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself. 18. Order XVIII Rule 1 indeed provides for plaintiff's right to begin the evidence but not the court's obligation to ask the plaintiffs to begin first. There is no impediment for the court to call upon either party to lead evidence first, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case 12024 INSC 1001 [S.L.P. (Civil) No.29045 of 2024], dt.09.12.2024 5 BSB, J C.R.P.No.1458 of 2025 and the nature of the issues framed. Neither party can insist that the other one should be asked to lead it first. It all depends upon what the Court deems proper in the circumstances. Where it finds that defendant's plea strikes of the root of the case, there would be no hitch in asking him/her to prove such plea first which can lead to disposal of the case. There can be no watertight compartmentalisation in matters of justice and all rules of procedure are designed and directed to achieve and secure ends of justice.” 8. The above decision squarely applies to the case on hand. The plaintiff, having filed the affidavit in chief examination by commencing the trail, filed the petition without any reason to step back. It is pertinent to mention that the provision in Order XVIII, Rule 1 C.P.C. shows that it is a right and not an obligation. The respondent No.1 has not chosen to exercise the right and on the other hand, the petitioner decided to commence his evidence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt: 04.09.2025 RAR