Short Note : 1. At the very outset, I would like to observe that such directions made by the trial Court while regulating its proceedings are absolutely in exercise of its discretion and unless it can be shown that the same has been exercised arbitrarily in a capricious manner there will be no scope for interference. In the opinion of the trial Court, burden to prove that the suit property was the property of joint Hindu family, liable for partition, was on the plaintiff who has brought the suit claiming partition of his share. The trial Court was further of the opinion that despite the fact that the defendants have pleaded that partition in respect of the suit property had already taken place in or about the year 1956 and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to bring the present suit for partition, the plaintiff was to begin and adduce evidence on the issues framed in the suit. 2. On going through the record, I find that in the present suit, there are several issues. The burden to prove some of which lies on the plaintiff and for some on the defendants. I also find that if the plea of the defendants that partition had already been effected and the plaintiff had got his share is proved, the plaintiff will not he entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks. Thus the provisions of Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are attracted. 3. In the present case, the trial Court has acted with material irregularity by totally overlooking the provisions of the Order 18, Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside and it is directed that the defendants shall begin and adduce evidence in support of their case as covered by issue nos. 3 and 4 as provided under Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However while doing so, it will be at their option either to produce their evidence, if necessary, on those issues, the burden for proving which lies on the plaintiff or to reserve their evidence on such issues by way of answer to the evidence produced by the plaintiff as provided in Rule 3 of Order 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Revision allowed.