Judgment :- This Civil Revision has been preferred against the order dated 212. 2006 made in I.A. No. 777 of 2006 in O.S. No. 231 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court in O.S. No. 231 of 1999 which was filed by the plaintiff/revision petitioner seeking damages from the respondents herein for n sum of Rs. 25,000/- for malicious prosecution and also for cost. While, the suit is pending, the petitioner/plaintiff filed interlocutory Application under Order 18 Rule 1 read with 151 C.P.C., whereby praying the Court below, to direct the respondents herein, to begin their case by leading evidence. 3. Mr. M.M.Sundaresh, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the respondents had given a complaint against the revision petitioner which ended in acquittal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is a clear case of malicious prosecution. However, copy of the order of acquittal is not available in the typed set of papers. Order 18, Rule I.C.P.C. reads 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 fats 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.” The provision of law is so clear that when there is a admission by the defendant and any specific defence is raised, in such a case the defendants has to adduce evidence, in view of the admission and raising defence. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner herein being plaintiff has alleged that the cause of action had arisen arises on 5. 1985, when a false complaint was lodged by the first defendant against the plaintiff with the fourth defendant, the then Inspector of Police, Crime Police Station, Ukkadam, Coimbatore District. It is a settled preposition of law that the plaintiff who has sought the relief has to establish the case. 1985, when a false complaint was lodged by the first defendant against the plaintiff with the fourth defendant, the then Inspector of Police, Crime Police Station, Ukkadam, Coimbatore District. It is a settled preposition of law that the plaintiff who has sought the relief has to establish the case. He cannot shift the burden on the defendants to disprove the plaint averments of the plaintiff and on that score, the Court below has dismissed the petition filed by the revision petitioner under Order 18, Rule 1 C.P.C., seeking a direction to let in evidence on the side of the defendants prior to the plaintiff’s evidence. 5. As per Section 115 C.P.C. only if the Court below has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise its jurisdiction or if there is any illegality or material irregularity, this Court can interfere with the same. Considering the facts and circumstances, I could find no such reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.