LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/jami-venkata-suryaprabha-anr-vs-tarini-prasad-nayak-ors-20241209/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Jami Venkata Suryaprabha & Anr. vs Tarini Prasad Nayak & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 December 2024
Case No.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29045 of 2024
Result
Disposed
Bench
J.B. Pardiwala, R Mahadevan
Citation
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 646 : 2024 INSC 1001
Acts & Sections
CPC
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 12 S.C.R. 646 : 2024 INSC 1001
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards the right of plaintiff to ask the defendant to lead the evidence.
Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Ord. XVIII r.1 – Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses – Right to begin – Defendants be asked to lead the oral evidence – When:

Held: Ord. XVIII speaks of the ‘hearing’ of a suit which is only a part of the trial of the suit – Determination of the question as to which party has a right to begin is an integral part of the hearing itself – Ord. XVIII r. 1 indeed provides for plaintiff's right to begin the evidence but not the court's obligation to ask the plaintiffs to begin first – No impediment for the court to call upon either party to lead evidence first, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the issues framed – Neither party can insist that the other one should be asked to lead it first – Where the court finds that defendant's plea strikes at the root of the case, no hitch in asking him/her to prove such plea first which can lead to disposal of the case – All rules of procedure are designed and directed to achieve and secure ends of justice – On facts, the trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioners u/Ord. XVIII r. 1 that as defendants are not disputing the agreement of sale, the defendant be asked to begin to lead oral evidence, and the High Court also declined to interfere – High Court rightly held that although the defence has admitted the existence of a document“agreement of sale”, yet they have specifically said that the same is a sham transaction – Averments made in the written statement sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff does not ipso facto be construed to be admission of materials facts in the alleged plaint – Thus, no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. [Paras 5, 7, 17-19]

Keywords: Right of plaintiff to ask defendant to lead the evidence · Hearing of suit and examination of witnesses · Right to begin · Hearing of a suit · Trial of the suit

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. This petition arises from the order passed by the High Court of Orissa in CMP No.1019 of 2024 (original jurisdiction case) dated 23rd September, 2024 by which the petition filed by the petitioners herein seeking to challenge the order passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi came to be rejected thereby affirming the order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting the application filed by the petitioners herein in the capacity of being a plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The petitioners herein are the original plaintiffs and the res
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →