Order of Evidence in Property Dispute: High Court Clarifies Procedural Rule.


16 April 2025 Property Dispute Asbestos >> Property & Real Estate  

The Delhi High Court recently overturned a Single Judge's order that had directed a defendant to lead evidence first in a complex family property dispute. The appellate court emphasized the general rule under Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which stipulates that the plaintiff typically has the right to begin presenting evidence.

The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Vinay Jain against his family members, who are the plaintiffs in a suit concerning an industrial property and the business affairs of a partnership firm, M/s V. Shah & Company. The plaintiffs claim the property and firm assets are joint family property subject to partition. Mr. Jain, the defendant, asserts the property was self-acquired and relies on a 2007 Family Settlement document, which he claims relinquished rights in his favor. The plaintiffs, however, dispute the validity of this settlement.

 
 

The Single Judge had framed eleven issues for trial, with the burden of proof for some key issues, including the genuineness of the family settlement and the alleged relinquishment of rights, falling on the defendant. Based on this, the Single Judge directed Mr. Jain to lead his evidence first.

Mr. Jain challenged this direction, arguing that it overlooked the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC. The respondents (plaintiffs) countered that Mr. Jain had consented to lead evidence first and that the direction was legally sound since the burden of proof for certain crucial issues lay with him.

The High Court, after reviewing the arguments and the relevant CPC provision, observed that the trigger for directing a defendant to lead evidence first is a clear admission by the defendant to the material facts alleged by the plaintiff. In this case, the court found no such admission in the Single Judge's order or from the defendant's appeal.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the High Court clarified that while a court has the discretion to decide the order of evidence based on the facts and circumstances, this discretion does not relax the rigor of Order XVIII Rule 1. The court concluded that merely noting that certain defense-related issues (like the genuineness of the family settlement) could impact the outcome does not automatically justify deviating from the general rule. The plaintiffs, as those seeking relief, still bear the initial burden of proving their claims.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order, directing that the plaintiffs must lead their evidence first in accordance with established legal procedure. This ruling reiterates the importance of adhering to procedural norms in civil trials, particularly concerning the sequence of evidence presentation.