General Rule Is Plaintiff Has A Right To Begin, Unless Defendant Admits All The ‘Material Allegations’: Delhi High Court on Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC

"To Deviate from the General Rule, There Must Be Admission by Defendant" - In a significant ruling Delhi High Court dealt with the procedural rigour under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court set aside an order of the learned Single Judge that had directed the defendant to lead evidence first in a civil suit for partition, possession, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction—on the ground that such direction violated the settled procedural law. 
 
The Division Bench of Justices Ajay Digpaul and C. Hari Shankar observed that "when we go through the impugned order under challenge, we do not find that the learned Single Judge has made any observation as regard to the admission by the defendant to the case of the plaintiff." 
 
“Suit Property Was Acquired Using Joint Family Funds”, Plaintiffs Asserted  
The dispute arose out of claims regarding an industrial property located at Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi, along with the business assets of a family-run firm, M/s V. Shah & Company, established in 1984. The plaintiffs—close relatives of the appellant— asserted their rights in the suit property on the ground that it was acquired through the partnership’s earnings and hence constituted joint family property. They argued that despite the firm not being formally dissolved, the defendant had taken exclusive possession of the firm’s assets after the death of Smt. Pratibha Jain in 2012. 
 
The defendant, Sh. Vinay Jain, contended that the property was his selfacquired property, merely registered in the name of the firm for convenience. He relied heavily on a Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 27.11.2007, wherein it was claimed that Smt. Pratibha Jain had relinquished her interest in the suit property, in exchange for similar relinquishment by the defendant’s wife in another ancestral residential property. 

“The Plaintiff Has the Right to Begin Unless Defendant Admits Facts and Sets Up New Defence” 
 
The trial court, upon framing eleven issues for trial on 10.09.2024, directed the defendant to lead evidence first, particularly on issues (iv) and (vii), concerning the genuineness of the Family Settlement and the alleged relinquishment of rights by Smt. Pratibha Jain. It held that since the burden of proof rested on the defendant, the sequence of evidence must begin with him. 
 
However, the Division Bench disagreed with this procedural deviation. Referring to the language of Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, the Court reaffirmed that "the plaintiff has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts alleged by the plaintiff and contends that either in 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..." 
 
The Court emphasized that this principle was not followed in the impugned order. “We do not find any observation to the effect that the defendant has admitted the material facts pleaded by the plaintiffs.” Rather, the appellant's consistent defence showed total denial of the plaintiffs’ claims, negating the rationale for reversing the sequence of evidence. 
“There Can Be No Water-Tight Compartmentalisation... But It Must Align with the Law” 
 
The respondents had cited the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jami Venkata Suryaprabha v. Tarini Prasad Nayak, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3862, where the apex court held that "there is no impediment for the court to call upon either party to lead evidence first, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case..." 
 
However, the Delhi High Court clarified that while procedural flexibility exists, it cannot override the statutory prescription of Order XVIII Rule 1. “The Court cannot be seen as having relaxed the rigour of Order XVIII Rule 1 of CPC.” It reiterated that deviation from the general rule is only permissible when the defendant admits all the material facts and seeks to defeat the claim on independent grounds. 
 
The Bench further stated, “We find that the order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. The plaintiffs will, therefore, have to lead the evidence in the proceedings, in accordance with law.” 

"Onus Lies on Plaintiffs to Prove Their Case First, as Per Law" 
 The judgment sets a clear procedural precedent on how courts must cautiously adhere to statutory provisions while deciding the sequence of trial. It draws a clear boundary: unless the defendant admits the plaintiff’s case, courts cannot compel him to lead evidence first merely because certain documents are within his knowledge or possession. 
 
Date of Decision: April 16, 2025