JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Plaintiff revisionist no. 3 Arun Kumar Bharadwaj is dead. His heirs and legal representatives are already on record as plaintiff revisionists no. 1 and 2. 2. Accordingly, let an endorsement be made before revisionist no. 3 that he is dead and that his estate and interest is represented by revisionists no. 1 and 2. 3. Substitution application no. 84019 of 2008 is allowed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The revision has been preferred against the order dated 2.1.2008 passed by the court below in Original Suit No. 397 of 1997 by which the earlier order passed by it on 17.9.2007 has been rectified/corrected. 6. It appears that in relation to the property left behind one Gaya Prasad his eldest son Chandra Mohan instituted a suit for declaration that he may be declared owner of 1/4th share of the property as against his two brothers and a sister. In the said suit the sister had filed written statement and a counter claim stating that Chandra Mohan had no right in the property and that the property had devolved upon the other two brothers. On their death she has inherited it as both of them died issue less. The said suit was ultimately withdrawn by heirs of Chandra Mohan and as such only the counter claim set up by her sister Smt. Kamla Devi survived. 7. In view of the above, the court below vide order dated 17.9.2007 ordered that as the counter claim of one of the defendants to the suit namely Smt. Kamla Devi, survives, she/her heirs would be treated as plaintiffs and the heirs of Chandra Mohan would be in the position of the defendants. Accordingly, the heirs of Smt. Kamla Devi were permitted to lead evidence first. 8. The aforesaid order has been modified by the impugned order and it has been provided that as the original plaintiff had set up two Wills of his deceased brothers, it should be proper that he should lead evidence first and this was the intention of the order passed earlier. 9. Irrespective of the fact as to who has filed or set up two Wills which are subject matter of dispute in the counter claim, the fact remains that the original suit as filed by the original plaintiff stands withdrawn as on date. 9. Irrespective of the fact as to who has filed or set up two Wills which are subject matter of dispute in the counter claim, the fact remains that the original suit as filed by the original plaintiff stands withdrawn as on date. It is only the counter claim of one of the original defendants in the suit that survives. Therefore, the said original defendant now represented by his heirs and legal representatives would be in a position of the plaintiff and at the same time the heirs and legal representatives of the original plaintiff would be in a position of the defendant. 10. It is settled legal postilion that the evidence has to be first adduced and led by the plaintiff to the suit and not by the defendant. 11. Accordingly, irrespective of the fact that as to who has filed the two Wills, the evidence has to be led by the present plaintiffs. 12. The revision as such is disposed of making it clear that notwithstanding the impugned orders dated 2.1.2008 or 17.9.2007 the present plaintiffs, ie. the heirs of Smt. Kamla Devi would be entitle to lead evidence first whereupon the present defendants, the heirs of Chandra Mohan would lead evidence. 13. The impugned orders dated 2.1.2008 and 17.9.2007 stand modified to the above extent.