In partition suits, co-defendants asserting independent shares may lead evidence before contesting defendants’ rebuttal.

The petitions arose from a partition suit, O.S. No. 4287/2000.

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sought a direction requiring the co-defendants who supported the plaintiffs and claimed shares in the suit properties to lead their evidence first, while reserving the petitioners’ right to adduce rebuttal evidence.

The Trial Court rejected the memo, citing pending proceedings concerning acceptance of defendant No. 4’s written statement and the plaintiffs’ proposed plaint amendment.

The dispute arose in a suit where parties asserted competing claims to shares; during its pendency, plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a registered partition deed, and defendant No. 4’s legal representatives later executed a confirmation deed.

The petitioners challenged the Trial Court’s order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the memo seeking a direction on the sequence of evidence in the partition suit.

2. Whether, in light of the parties’ rival claims and the confirmation deed, defendant No. 4’s legal representatives should lead evidence before defendant No. 3, the purchasers, and defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

In a partition suit, each party claiming a share asserts an independent right to the suit properties, regardless of the party’s formal position as plaintiff or defendant; claims by co-defendants supporting the plaintiffs require adjudication on the pleadings and evidence, subject to payment of the requisite court fee.

The sequence of evidence is to be determined having regard to the nature of the rival claims and the pleadings.

The contesting parties may retain a right to lead rebuttal evidence in response to the evidence of the plaintiffs and other parties.

The order does not identify a specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for these principles.

The Trial Court’s stated reasons for rejecting the memo no longer justified deferring the request: the plaint-amendment proceedings had been disposed of, and no stay was operating in the Supreme Court proceedings concerning defendant No. 4’s written statement.

Since the written statement had been accepted and its acceptance was not stayed, defendant No. 4 could lead evidence, subject to the outcome of those proceedings.

As defendant No. 4’s legal representatives had confirmed the partition deed, the Court directed them to lead evidence first, followed by defendant No. 3, whose inter se dispute with defendant No. 4 also required adjudication.

The purchasers could then lead limited evidence, after which defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could adduce rebuttal evidence.

It allowed the memo to the extent of directing that defendant No. 4’s legal representatives lead evidence first, followed by defendant No. 3, then such limited evidence from the purchasers as necessary, and thereafter rebuttal evidence from defendant Nos. 1 and 2.

The Trial Court was directed to proceed expeditiously, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.