Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 638 (MP)

Harichand v. Narayandas

1993-11-23

A.R.TIWARI

body1993
JUDGMENT This revision petition presented under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') is directed against the order dated 4.10.93 rendered by XVI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore in COS No. 23-A/93, thereby rejecting the application moved under Order 18 rule 1, 2 and 3 read with S. 151 of the Code (IA No.5). In the main suit, an order was passed earlier by the trial Court directing the applicant (defendant) to begin the evidence in terms of Order 18 rule 1 of the Code. This order was upheld by this Court and in compliance, the applicant stated his case and, produced some evidence in terms of Order 18 rule 2 of the Code. Thereafter, the NA (Plaintiff) amended the pleadings by leave of the Court The applicant then prayed that in view of the subsequent developments, the non-applicant be directed to begin his evidence as the burden of proof at least on the amended pleadings was squarely on him. On this prayer, the trial Court observed that the applicant having begun the evidence, that mode was not reversable in the midst of the proceedings and consequently on this linchpin rejected the prayers. It is this order which is sought to be revised in this revision petition. I have heard Shri A.K. Sethi learned counsel for the applicant on the question of admission. The counsel was unable to point out any jurisdictional error. I have perused the order. I am satisfied that there is also no illegality or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Court below. The applicant, if he so chooses, may apply to the trial Court to permit reservation by way of answer to the evidence in support of the issues on which the burden of proof may be found to be on the other party. On such a prayer being made, the Court shall then decide that prayer in conformity with law. Shri Sethi submits that such a prayer was not made in the trial Court and as such the trial Court had no occasion to consider the same. In the circumstances, this revision petition fails and is dismissed without notice to the other side with the observations as above.