Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-non-applicant filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale alleged to have been executed on 18-10-73. The applicant admitted the execution of this document, but pleaded that the non-applicant's husband Sardarmal had advanced a sum of Rs. 4,500 to the applicant for his contract business on 19-9-71 and it was Sardarmal who had got the suit agreement to sell the house executed on 18-10-73 by adding Rs. 1,800 on account of interest. It was also averred that there was no privity of contract between the applicant and non-applicant and that the non-applicant's husband Sardarmal obtained the applicant's signature on the document in suit by un due influence and coercion taking advantage of his superior position of being as Assistant Engineer in the Health Department where the applicant had taken certain contracts. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues Nos., 1 to 5 were framed, the burden of which is on the applicant. There is only one issue No.6 which raises the question whether the plaintiff is ready and witting to perform her part of the contract, the burden of which is on the plaintiff-non-applicant. Under these circumstances, the trial Court by the impugned order has asked the applicant to begin his evidence. Against the said order the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the non-applicant's husband being the Assistant Engineer in the Department in which the applicant carries on the work of his contract is in a position to dominate the will of the applicant and the impugned contract having been entered into between the applicant and the non-applicant's husband, the burden is on the non-applicant to prove that the contract was not induced by undue influence. The contention is wholly untenable. The non-applicant is admittedly not in a position to dominate the will of the applicant she comes with the case that the applicant had entered into a contract with her and wants to get it enforced. The applicant has raised the defence that the real contracting party is the non-applicants husband and that he got the agreement executed under the circumstances already stated earlier. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the transaction in suit is unconscionable. Therefore, the burden to prove undue influence is on the applicant looking to the issues Nos. The applicant has raised the defence that the real contracting party is the non-applicants husband and that he got the agreement executed under the circumstances already stated earlier. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that the transaction in suit is unconscionable. Therefore, the burden to prove undue influence is on the applicant looking to the issues Nos. 1 to 5 as they stand at present, the burden is certainly on the applicant to prove them. 2. In case the applicant is unsuccessful in discharging the burden of undue influence the non-applicant shall be liable to prove only the fact of her willingness to perform the contract to obtain a decree for specific performance. It is true that for proving issue No.6 the trial Court could have asked the non-applicant to begin, but there is a M. P. Amendment to Order 18, Rule 2 CPC, whereby sub-rule (4) to rule 2 has been added to the effect that notwithstanding any thing contained in this rule, the Court may order that the production of evidence or the address to the Court may be in any order which it may deem fit. The trial Court on the basis of the said sub-rule has exercised the jurisdiction in directing the applicant to begin. The trial Court, therefore, cannot be said to have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Revision dismissed.