Decoding the Right to Begin: SC Upholds Flexibility in Evidence Procedure.
09 December 2024
Evidence >> Criminal Law
This petition arose from an order by the High Court of Orissa in CMP No.1019 of 2024, which upheld the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Paralakhemundi. The Civil Judge had rejected the application filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, requesting that the defendants be directed to begin leading oral evidence in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 1st September 2019.
The defendants contested the sale agreement in their written statement, calling it a sham transaction while admitting the existence of a document. The plaintiffs argued that since the defendants did not entirely deny the agreement, they should begin leading evidence. However, both the trial court and the High Court dismissed this argument, holding that the defendants had not admitted the material facts of the plaintiffs’ claim.
The Supreme Court observed that under Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff typically has the right to begin unless the defendant admits the facts but argues on points of law or additional facts. Additionally, the burden of proof lies with the party who would fail if no evidence were presented, as per Section 102 of the Evidence Act. The Court also noted that procedural rules, including Order XVIII, allow flexibility for courts to direct either party to lead evidence first, depending on the circumstances and the nature of the case.
Concluding that the High Court’s reasoning was sound and aligned with procedural principles, the Supreme Court declined to interfere and dismissed the special leave petition (SLP).
Section 102, Indian Evidence Act - 1872