TAPAS KUMAR MAHAPATRA Vs. BISWAMBAR MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous petition involves rejection of an application under Order 18, Rule 1 of C.P.C seeking a direction to the D.1 to begin the hearing first.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the clear objection of the defendant in the written statement with regard to the existence of a previous partition, the fate of the suit will be dependent on the ultimate outcome involving the previous partition. Therefore, there arises a situation for asking the defendant No. 1 to begin first. Referring to a decision of this Court in the case in between Babaji Behera Vs. Baishnaba Charan Behera as reported in 2016 (Supp.-I) OLR 112, Sri Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this decision has a direct application to the case at hand and for which, submitted that the impugned order should be interfered with and set aside.

(3.) Sri Bhaskar Chandra Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, while supporting the impugned order submitted that the plaintiff has to succeed on its own leg and there is no scope for the plaintiff to bank on the plea of the defendants. It is under the circumstance, Sri Panda, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 claimed that there is a justified decision by the trial Court involving an application under Order 18, Rule 1 of C.P.C requiring no interference in the same.