JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - Sri S.S.Das, learned senior counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners by filing memorandum in Court today. The same be kept on record. 2. Heard Sri S.S.Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners involving the impugned order. 3. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition involves a challenge to the order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Athgarh in Civil Suit No.117 of 2016 involving Annexure-6 thereby allowing an application under Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the instance of the plaintiff praying the trial court to ask the defendant nos.1 and 27 to adduce their evidence first. Considering the pleadings involved in the gift deed, particularly, dealing with the prayer involving prayer No.viii, the objection of the defendant nos.1 and 27 specifically in paragraph-10, taking into consideration of the provision requiring contingency invoking Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that dealing with the matters, the court taking such application is required to find the issue involving such prayer is there or not and then in the event any such issue is there, to proceed to have a finding as to the relevancy in the asking of the plaintiff or the defendant to begin first, further keeping in view that unless such evidence will in the first instance determine all the issues involving the suit or not, failure of which there is no possibility of getting out of the suit and there is definite chance of going to evidence on all other issues to conclude the suit finally. Perusal of the facts and relief involved herein, this Court finds the suit not only involves several issues but the evidence also is of multi dimensional. 4. Perused the impugned order and on perusal of the same, this Court finds the trial court has absolutely not taken into account any of the above contingencies before issuing the impugned direction and as appears has totally directed itself considering the proceeding is a suit for partition alone, therefore, observed that there is no difference between the parties. 4. Perused the impugned order and on perusal of the same, this Court finds the trial court has absolutely not taken into account any of the above contingencies before issuing the impugned direction and as appears has totally directed itself considering the proceeding is a suit for partition alone, therefore, observed that there is no difference between the parties. It is for this serious lapse involving the impugned order, this Court while declining to issue notice to the contesting opposite party-plaintiff, interfering in the impugned order, remits the matter back to the trial court for re-hearing the application under Order 18, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure but however giving opportunity of further objection and hearing to the plaintiff as well as defendant nos.1 and 27. The hearing of the matter, as directed hereinabove, be concluded by passing a reasoned order within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order by the petitioners. Final Result : Disposed