JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance alleging that he had executed an agreement for sale with the defendant for a total consideration of Rs. 52,000/- out of which the plaintiff was paid Rs. 26,000/- by way of an advance. The suit was resisted by the defendant alleging that he had not entered into an agreement for specific performance and denied the plaint allegations. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the written statement the defendant contended that he had taken a loan of Rs. 26,000/- from the plaintiff against which he had issued a receipt for the said purposes and specifically denied any execution of an agreement for sale. 2. On the basis of the pleadings, various issues were framed, and Issue No. 8 was framed on the basis of the averments made by the defendants in paragraph 18 of the written statement. It transpires that the plaintiff moved an application praying the defendant should be directed to lead the evidence on issue No. 8. This application was allowed by the trial Court directing the defendant to lead the evidence in view of the admission made by him in paragraph No. 18 of the written statement. The defendant filed a revision which was also dismissed. Consequently the writ petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Order 18, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. provides as under : “Right to begin.—The plaintiff has 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 the right to begin.” 4. The aforesaid Rule indicates that where the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff in such a situation the defendants would be given the right to lead evidence. In the present case, from a perusal of the written statement of the defendant, it is clear that the defendant has denied the plaint allegation about the execution of any document relating to the sale of the property in question. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the written statement, the defendant had only contended that he had taken a loan of Rs. In paragraph Nos. 17 and 18 of the written statement, the defendant had only contended that he had taken a loan of Rs. 26,000/- for which he had issued a receipt and specifically denied the execution of any document relating to an agreement for sale. Consequently, it cannot be said that the defendant admitted the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his plaint. Consequently, the Court below committed an error in relying upon the provisions of Order 18 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. in directing the defendants to lead the evidence first. 5. Consequently, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Petition Allowed. ————