Judgment :- Patnaik, J. Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 173 of 1992 on the file of the 1st Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam, have preferred this revision against the order dated 24-6-1993. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Sub Judge directed the petitioners to lead the evidence first. The petitioners contended that it is for the plaintiff to begin first. The respondents herein filed the suit for recovery of money from the petitioners. One of the pleas taken by the petitioners-defendants in their written statement is that they have paid the amount which has been claimed and discharged the liability. It is stated by the learned Sub Judge that on 24-6-1993, he ascertained from one of the defendants, who was present in the court, as to what exactly is the nature of the dispute. He submitted that (he dispute is only with regard to the interest. Further the learned counsel appearing for the defendants submitted before the court that the entire amount has been paid by the defendants to the plaintiff and that the main contention of the defendants is plea of discharge. 3. Order 18 rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, (for short "C.P.C.") lays down that 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 there life which he seeks, in which case the defendant has the right to begin. Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, for short, the Act, lays down that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence ai all were given on either side. 4. The learned Sub Judge, after ascertaining the points of dispute between the parties, presumably, under Order 10 Rule 1 C.P.C. found that the only controversy between them is with regard to the pica of discharge and claim of interest. That is also one of the pleas taken in the written statement. It. therefore follows that the petitioners have virtually admitted (lie claim but pleaded that the claim was satisfied by repayment and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get any money from them. That is also one of the pleas taken in the written statement. It. therefore follows that the petitioners have virtually admitted (lie claim but pleaded that the claim was satisfied by repayment and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to get any money from them. If no evidence is adduced by either party, in view of the admission of the defendants, the court is bound to hold that they owe money to the plaintiff, in the absence of any evidence to show that the money claimed has been repaid earlier. Hence, the burden of proof lies on the defendants in this case. 5. Under Order 18, rule 1 C.P.C. the right to begin, though normally is with the plaintiff, that right shifts to the defendant if the defendant admits the allegations made by the plaintiff. Here, the main dispute centres round the question of repayment of money which is sought "to be recovered. Since the defendants have admitted the claim, it is for them to begin as contemplated under Order 18, rule 1 C.P.G 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that apart from the aforesaid pleas of the defendants, many other questions like maintainability of the suit, locus standi of the person who filed the suit for recovery of the amount and non joinder of necessary and proper parties have been raised. It is for the plaintiff to prove that prima facie the suit in maintainable. The person filing the suit has the right to do so and their suit is not bad for non joinder of parties. It is therefore argued that the plaintiff should begin first to prove all these issues. Thereafter the defendants will have the opportunity to adduce evidence with regard to the plea of discharge. I am afraid that this contention is not well founded. If the main issue with regard to discharge of the debt succeeds all other issues become redundant. Hence they are only incidental issues. Moreover, on a perusal of the written statement, it appears that the defendants have not staled on what grounds the suit is not maintainable or who else are the necessary and proper parties in the suit, how the person who filed the suit is incompetent although he is the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. Moreover, on a perusal of the written statement, it appears that the defendants have not staled on what grounds the suit is not maintainable or who else are the necessary and proper parties in the suit, how the person who filed the suit is incompetent although he is the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff. On the basis of a general statement about the maintainability etc., there can be no inference that the suit is not maintainable. The court has not said that no liability is cast on the plaintiff to prove such facts. But, the court found that the main controversy being with regard to the plea of discharge and claim of interest, under section 102 of the Act read with Order 18 rule 1 C.P.C. It is for the defendants to adduce the evidence first inasmuch as if the plea of discharge is duly proved, no other issue would call for decision. However, the defendants may be allowed to reserve the right to adduce further evidence on any issue if considered proper by the court below under Order 18 rule 3 C.P.C. The impugned order, therefore, is neither erroneous nor dies it cause any injustice to any of the parties. In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. 7. The revision is dismissed will the observation that the defendants shall begin the evidence first reserving a right to adduce further evidence, if necessary, after the plaintiffs close their evidence.