RAMBHAU GOPALA INGALE Vs. HOUSABAI DAGDU INGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner/defendant has challenged the order, whereby the court directed to begin with their evidence prior to the evidence of the plaintiff as per order 18, Rule 1 of C.P.C. on next date. This order is dated 4.8.07. The petition is pending since then.

(2.) WHEN the Suit is for partition and the defendant raises specific plea about previous partition of the suit property, in such circumstances, there is nothing wrong when court passes such order directing defendant to begin with the matter. Even otherwise, such plea of previous partition as goes to the root of the matter in a suit for partition and whosoever raises that specific plea it is desirable that such party to lead evidence first.

(3.) THEREFORE the order cannot be said to be perverse or contrary to the law. The fact and the plea as raised in the present case, in my view, is sufficient to maintain the order. This order is even otherwise need no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is dismissed.