Bengaluru, October 23, 2025 - The Karnataka High Court has clarified an important procedural question under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) in a family property dispute, ruling that plaintiffs must lead their evidence first before the defendant is called upon to testify. The decision came in a writ petition filed by Mr. Deenanath, aged 65, challenging an order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru, in O.S. No. 193 of 2019.
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, delivering an oral order, set aside the trial court’s direction that had required the defendant to lead evidence first.
Background
The dispute stems from a partition suit filed by four siblings Chandrahas, Thukaram, Jalajakshi, and Yashavanthi against their elder brother Deenanath, over their late father K. Ananda’s property in Mangaluru. The plaintiffs sought 1/5th share each in the ancestral ‘A’ schedule property.
Deenanath, however, opposed the claim, asserting that their father had executed a will dated 11 November 2007 in his favor, bequeathing one of the properties exclusively to him.
During trial, the plaintiffs filed a memo stating they had “no evidence to lead at present” and wished to reserve the right to adduce rebuttal evidence later. The trial court accepted this and asked the defendant to lead evidence first prompting the current writ petition.
Court's Observations
Justice Shetty examined the scope of Order XVIII Rules 1 and 3 of the CPC, which govern the sequence of evidence presentation in civil trials.
The Court noted,
“Ordinarily, it is the plaintiff who has a right to begin by leading his evidence, and only in exceptional circumstances can the defendant do so.” The bench emphasized that this procedural right cannot be reversed unless the defendant explicitly claims and justifies it.
Referring to earlier precedents, the judge cited Bhagirath Shankar Somani vs. Rameshchandra Daulal Soni (Bombay High Court, 2007), observing that
"the provision merely gives an enabling right to the defendant; it does not empower the court to compel him to begin."
On the contrary, the Orissa High Court’s view in Rama Krushna Mohanty (2016) that trial courts could ask defendants to lead first was deemed persuasive but not binding on Karnataka courts.
Justice Shetty clarified,
"In cases where multiple issues exist and the burden of proof on some lies with the defendant, the plaintiff may reserve rebuttal rights. However, that does not relieve him of his primary obligation to begin evidence on issues where the burden lies on him."
Decision
Setting aside the Mangaluru court’s order dated November 10, 2021, the High Court ruled that the plaintiffs must begin their evidence on all issues except the one concerning the validity of the will which remains the defendant’s responsibility to prove.
The judge directed:
"If the plaintiffs later seek to lead rebuttal evidence on the will after the defendant’s deposition, the trial court shall consider it appropriately."
Emphasizing the age of the case, Justice Shetty further urged the trial court to expedite the proceedings, stating that since the suit dates back to 2019, it must be disposed of as quickly as possible.
With that, the writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were declared disposed of.
Case Title: Dinanath and Chandrahas & Ors
Case Type and Number: Writ Petition No. 796 of 2022 (GM-CPC)
Date of Judgment: 23rd October 2025