Judgment 1. The defendants in the suit are the petitioners in the revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is the brother of the first petitioner. The second petitioner is none other than the son of the first petitioner. The suit was filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff for partition claiming that the suit property belonged to their mother Valliammal wife of Seeranga Gounder and on her death, both the first petitioner and the respondent became entitled to ½ share each. 2. The revision petitioners are resisting the prayer made in the plaint, based on their contention that though Valliammal was granted a sale deed in respect of the suit properties by her husband Seeranga Gounder, the same was the consequence of a family settlement by which the members of the family agreed for an arrangement that the property transferred in the name of Valliammal should go to her daughter after her death and that even during the life time of Valliammal, the first petitioner was enjoying the suit properties along with her mother. It is also contended by the petitioners that after the death of Valliammal, on the third day ceremony the respondent admitted before the Panchayatdars that the suit properties would go to the first petitioner alone; that the panchayatdars felt it to be an insult to the respondent, if he were asked to execute a sale deed in favour of the first petitioner and that hence the respondent is estopped from claiming a share in the suit property. As the petitioners do not dispute the origin of title and also the derivation of title by Valliammal, but on the other hand, they claim that there was a family arrangement, pursuant to which the first petitioner is entitled to the entire suit property, the learned trial judge seems to have called upon the defendants to adduce evidence to prove their case before ever the respondent/plaintiff would lead his evidence. 3. 3. Though the said procedure adopted by the trial court cannot be found fault with, the learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the court below, after having listed the case for recording the evidence to be adduced on the side of the plaintiff and having adjourned it for a number of times, ought not to have called upon the defendants to lead evidence before ever the plaintiff would lead evidence in proof of his case; that more over, the order of the trial court is a non speaking order without assigning any reason for calling upon the defendants to adduce evidence at the first instance and that hence the above said order has got to be set aside. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, would submit that though initially the suit was posted for recording the evidence to be adduced on the side of the plaintiff, the respondent/plaintiff filed a petition for framing an additional issue and the same was allowed on 20.09.2011, pursuant to which an additional issue regarding the family arrangement propounded by the defendants came to be framed; that after the framing of such additional issue, considering the nature of pleadings of both parties, the court below had rightly called upon the defendants to lead evidence before ever the plaintiff would lead his part of the evidence and that therefore, the said order cannot be interfered with by this court in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondent relies on Rule 1 of Order 18 of CPC, which says that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contend that either on 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. 6. A reading of the said rule will make it clear that the rule declares the right of the plaintiff and also the defendant in certain circumstances, to lead evidence at the first instance before ever the other party can lead evidence. 6. A reading of the said rule will make it clear that the rule declares the right of the plaintiff and also the defendant in certain circumstances, to lead evidence at the first instance before ever the other party can lead evidence. As per the said rule, generally the plaintiff shall have a right to begin, but in case when the defendant admits some of the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to any part of the relief which he seeks, then the right of the plaintiff shall be defeated by the right of the defendant to lead evidence at the first instance. 7. A proper construction of the above said rule will make it clear that the defendant cannot be compelled to lead evidence against his/her will to lead evidence before ever the plaintiff would lead evidence on his part. When the defendant is not inclined to exercise the right given to him/her under Rule 1 of Order 18 CPC, the plaintiff shall lead evidence and while doing so, he/she may be given liberty to reserve his/her right to lead additional evidence to rebut the evidence adduced on the side of the defendant in proof of the contentions made by the defendant based on which, the right contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 18 CPC could have gone to the defendants. 8. Under such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the interest of justice can be met with by setting aside the order of the trial court calling upon the defendants to lead evidence before ever the plaintiff would lead evidence on his part. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to lead evidence generally in support of the relief sought for and may reserve his right to adduce rebuttal evidence, when the defendants would lead evidence in proof of their claim in the written statement. 9. With the above direction, the civil revision petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.