RAVINDER SINGH Vs. MANLOCHAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, the dispute is only between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Consequently, learned counsel for the parties are agreed that it is not necessary to serve respondent Nos. 1 and 7 to 21. Accordingly, revision petition has been taken up for final disposal. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) Manlochan Kaur has filed a suit for declaration that she is the owner of one-half share in the dispute property and entitled to separate possession thereof. The petitioner has been impleaded as defendant No. 6 in the said civil suit. Respondents No. 2 to 6 have been impleaded defendants No 1 to 5. The dispute in this revision petition is only as to who viz. defendants No. 1 to 5 or defendant No. 6 should lead evidence first. The petitioner (defendant No. 6) had filed an application before the learned trial Court that defendant No. 1 to 5 should lead evidence before him. This application has been rejected on the ground that while defendant No. 6 viz. the petitioner had accepted that Manlochan Kaur is the daughter of Gurnam Singh, defendant No 1 to 5 had taken the plea that she is not his daughter. Consequently, the learned Court expressed the view that it would be fair if defendant No. 6 leads evidence before the other defendants.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that after the plaintiff has closed her evidence, the defendants should be called upon to lead evidence in the order in which they have been impleaded and that the learned Court has acted illegally in directing him to lead evidence before defendants No 1 to 5. The claim has been controverted by Mr. A.K. Mittal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 6 in this revision petition.