K SHANMUGHA GANDHI Vs. K VENUGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 31.1.2006 passed in I.A.No,21 of 2006 in O.S.No,9 of 2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam. Inveighing the order dated 31.1.2006 passed in I.A.No,21 of 2006 in O.S.No,9 of 2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, this civil revision petition is focussed.

(2.) THE nutshell facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:- THE respondent herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No,2853 of 2007 before the District Judge, Erode, seeking the following reliefs: (a) for partition of schedule 1 and 4 of the suit properties fully described in the schedule here under into 6 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff (b) for partition of schedule 2 and 3 of the suit properties fully described in the schedule here under into 18 equal shares by metes and bounds and with reference to good and bad soil and for separate possession of 7 such contiguous shares to the plaintiff." THE 5th defendant/revision petitioner entered appearance and filed his written statement. When the suit was ripened for trial, it appears I.A.No,21 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff under Order 18 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking the following relief: "to direct the 5th respondent to begin his case and thereby render justice." THE lower Court also directed the 5th defendant to adduce evidence at the first instance during trial.

(3.) THE perusal of the records would display and disclose, convey and demonstrate that the lower Court simply misdirected itself on the sole ground that D5, who pleaded based on the 'Will'-dated 10.4.1994 should prove his case. No doubt, the propounder of the 'Will' alone should prove the genuineness of the 'Will', in accordance with law. But it does not mean that the plaintiff is absolved from proving his case at the first instance.