Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsels for the parties. 2. By the impugned order the learned court below in exercise of its power under Order XVIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has directed the defendants to lead evidence first. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that in normal course it was the plaintiff to begin with the evidence and there is nothing on the record to show that defendants are making any obstruction in the way of the plaintiff and as such the learned court below has erred in directing the defendants to lead evidence first. 4. Normally this court in exercise of its discretion under Sec.115 of the Code does not interfere with such an order. 5. When I had also endorsed this view, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners produced before me a decision of this court reported in the case of Chandradeo Singh and others V/s. Moti Devi and others, 1991 (2) PLJR 966. This court in Chandradeo Singhs case (Supra) has held that in special circumstances when the parties are going to suffer injury the revision application should be entertained. 6. Accordingly, I have entertained the civil revision application. 7. In this case, it appears that the plaintiff is claiming right in the suit for partition by way of succession on the allegation that one of the cosharers Somaru Singh has dis-inherited the property. On the other hand the defendants are claiming their right by virtue of deed of gift executed in favour of the wife of defendant No.1 Keshwar Singh and also by deed of gift executed in 1975 by Somaru Singh. 8. It is settled principle that a person who seeks to dis-place the natural succession to the property should begins with the evidence. 9. Here from the pleadings of the parties and from the impugned order, i find that some how or the other the plaintiff is being obstructed by the dependents and in that view of the matter, I hold that the learned court below has not committed error of record nor he has acted with material irregularity in passing the impugned order. 10. In that view of the matter-I do not intend to interfere with the impugned order. This Civil Revision application is accordingly, dismissed. Revision Dismissed.