Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 89 (PAT)

Shiv Nandan Prasad v. Ram Lakhan Sah

1990-03-06

BINOD KUMAR ROY

body1990
Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The defendants are the petitioners. 2. In a Money Suit instituted in the year 1980, a question arose before the trial court as to who has the right to begin. By the impugned order the trial court directed the petitioners to begin on the ground that they admit the facts alleged by the plaintiff and that as they have also taken a plea of excess payment and have put in a counter-claim. 3. Mr. Girijapati Sanyal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, had earlier contended that the court below has misunderstood the provision of Order XVIII, Rule 1, C. P. C. Following him, Mr. Trivedi also reiterates the same submission. 4. Mr. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel, on the other side, contends that the court below has correctly appreciated the legal position. 5. Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows :- "the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in point of law or on some additional facts alleged by the defendant the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, in which case the defendant has right to begin. " 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes absolutely clear that if a defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in the point of law or on some additional facts alleged by him, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relies claimed in that event the defendant has to begin leading of evidence first. 7. Thus, in my view, the contention of Mr. Krishna Mohan is absolutely correct. The defendant has admitted some facts, alleged additional facts, set forth a counter-claim, and argued that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief rather he is entitled to the relief claimed by him. 8. In this view of the matter, I do not feel that any jurisdictional error was committed by the court below while passing the impugned order. 9. In the result, this civil revision application is without any merit and is thus dismissed, but without costs. Appeals dismissed.