Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010005732025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/12/2025 M/S JOGENDRA BASTRALAYA A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AT NAZIRPATTY, P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM, DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS - 1.1: SAMIR SAHA S/O LATE BIMALENDU SAHA R/O SWAMIJI ROAD ITKHOLA SILCHAR-1 P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM 1.2: PRABIR SAHA S/O LATE BIMALENDU SAHA R/O SWAMIJI ROAD ITKHOLA SILCHAR-1 P.O. AND P.S.-SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSA VERSUS SHYAMAL CHANDRA PAUL @ SHYAMAL PAUL AND ANR S/O SRI TARANI KANTA PAUL, R/O PARSUNATH CHOUDHURY AREA SHILLONG, P.O. AND P.S.- RAILBONG, DIST- EAST KHASI HILLS, MEGHALAYA, PIN-793004 2:JIBON PAUL S/O SRI TARANI KANTA PAUL R/O PARSUNATH CHOUDHURY AREA SHILLONG P.O. AND P.S.- RAILBONG DIST- EAST KHASI HILLS Page No.# 2/3 MEGHALAYA PIN-79300 Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. D Chakrabarty Advocate for the respondent(s): B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 22.01.2025 Heard Mr. D Chakrabarty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner herein had challenged the order dated 30.11.2024 passed in Petition No.843/2007 arising out of Title Suit No.11/2016 wherein the petitioner as the plaintiff had filed an application that the defendant who had filed the counter claim should begin the suit by adducing evidence rather than the plaintiff. 3. Mr. D Chakrabarty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that in the instant case the petitioner as plaintiff had sought for a declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant and cannot be evicted without following the due process. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendants thereupon filed their written statement along with a counter claim whereby have sought eviction of the plaintiff on the ground of bona fide requirement. He, therefore, submitted that in terms of Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code), the defendant Page No.# 3/3 is to begin. This Court had duly perused the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code. This is a right being conferred upon the plaintiff or the defendant to begin, in a circumstance as stated in the said provision. However, it is relevant to take note of that the right to begin cannot be confused with a direction to begin. 4. Taking into account the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code which only postulates a right to begin, this Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 30.11.2024 impugned in the instant proceedings. 5. Accordingly the instant petition stands dismissed. 6. Be that as it may, it has been informed that the learned Trial Court has fixed the next date on 12.03.2025 for the purpose of adducing evidence of the PWs. 7. This Court observes and clarifies that the impugned order so passed shall not prejudice the petitioner/the plaintiff. JUDGE Comparing Assistant