CHANDRALATHA Vs. ANNAMALLAI FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 173 of 1992 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, have preferred this revision against the order dated 24-6-1993. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sub Judge directed the petitioners to lead the evidence first. The petitioners contended that it is for the plaintiff to begin first.

(2.) The respondents herein filed the suit for recovery of money from the petitioners. One of the pleas taken by the petitioners-defendants in their written statement is that they have paid the amount which has been claimed and discharged the liability. It is stated by the learned Sub Judge that on 24-6-1993, he ascertained from one of the defendants, who was present in the court, as to what exactly is the nature of the dispute. He submitted that the dispute is only with regard to the interest Further the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted before the court that the entire amount has been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and that the main contention of the defendants is plea of discharge.

(3.) O.18 R.1 of Code of Civil Procedure, (for short "C.P.C.") lays down that 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 plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. S.102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for short, the Act, lays down that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side