The "Right to Begin" under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC is Not a Compellable Duty to Begin.

The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed Partition Suit No. 156 of 2017 seeking a preliminary decree and 6/20 share in the suit property, asserting unity of title and possession

The petitioner (Defendant No. 1) and other defendants filed written statements denying the claim, asserting that a partition had already occurred in 1988

On 09.12.2022, the plaintiff filed a petition requesting the court to direct the defendants to adduce evidence first, arguing that the defendants' plea of a prior partition shifted the burden of proof

The Sub Judge, Bagaha, allowed the petition via order dated 06.04.2023, directing the defendants to produce witnesses first

The petitioner challenged this order before the Patna High Court.

1. Whether the "right to begin" under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the CPC can be construed as a "duty to begin," thereby compelling a defendant to adduce evidence first

2. Whether, in a partition suit where the defendant pleads a prior partition, the plaintiff is relieved of the initial burden to lead evidence

Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which provides that the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief based on additional facts or points of law

Mohammad Janangir @ Mohammad Jahangir Alam vs. Sajda Khatoon (2007) to establish that Order XVIII Rule 1 confers a "right" and not an "obligatory responsibility" or "duty" upon the defendant to begin

Chandradeo Singh Ors. vs. Moti Devi Ors. (1992) to uphold the principle that the party asserting a fact (onus probandi) generally bears the burden of proof

The Court observed that while the defendants admitted the family relationship, they specifically denied the plaintiff’s core assertions of "unity of title" and "unity of possession," claiming instead that the joint family status ceased in 1988

Applying the principles from Mohammad Janangir, the Court reasoned that Order XVIII Rule 1 is elective for the defendant; even if the conditions of the rule are met, it is the defendant's option to exercise the right to begin, but the court cannot compel them to do so as a duty

Since the plaintiff initiated the suit and asserted the claim for partition, the legal onus remains on the plaintiff to lead evidence in the first instance to prove their case

The court found that the trial court erred in treating the "right to begin" as a mandatory "duty to begin"

The Court directed the plaintiff(s) to lead their evidence first, while noting that the plaintiff retains the option to reserve rebuttal evidence in accordance with Order XVIII Rule 3 of the CPC

The Civil Miscellaneous Application was allowed