Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC Does Not Require Plaintiff to Always Lead Evidence First; Defendant May Be Directed to Prove Adverse Possession First: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Case Name: Rajesh Kukkar v. Shyam Sunder Vadhera Through His Special Power of Attorney Holder Vijay Kumar Vadhera

Date of Judgment: 27 August 2026

Citation: CR-6207-2026

Bench: Justice Harsh Bunger

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Order XVIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not mandate that the plaintiff must invariably lead evidence first. Depending upon the pleadings, the nature of the issues framed and the burden of proof, the Court may direct either party to begin the evidence. Where a defendant raises a plea, such as acquisition of ownership by adverse possession, which goes to the root of the suit and the burden of proving that plea rests upon him, the trial court may validly require the defendant to lead evidence first.

The Court further held that the plaintiff’s statutory right to begin evidence does not confer a corresponding right upon the defendant to insist upon leading evidence last. Procedural rules must be applied in a manner that narrows the controversy, expedites adjudication and advances the ends of justice.

Summary: The respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit seeking possession of a building situated at Wool Bazar/Raja Cinema Road, Fazilka, along with mesne profits of ₹10,000 per month from 15 November 2019 until delivery of possession and consequential permanent injunction.

The plaintiff claimed ownership on the basis of a judgment and decree dated 3 October 1966. According to him, the defendant, who was his nephew, had been permitted to occupy the property for carrying on business because of their relationship. The defendant had allegedly assured the plaintiff that he would surrender possession upon receiving one year’s prior notice. Despite being asked to vacate the premises, the defendant failed to surrender possession, leading to the institution of the suit.

The defendant contested the claim and specifically pleaded that his possession had remained open, hostile and adverse to the plaintiff and had matured into ownership by adverse possession. Accordingly, the trial court framed a separate issue as to whether the defendant’s possession had ripened into title after the expiry of 12 years, with the burden of proof placed upon the defendant.

By an order the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, directed the defendant to lead evidence first on the issues for which the burden rested upon him. The defendant subsequently applied for a direction that the plaintiff be required to lead evidence before him. The trial court dismissed the application, observing that the earlier order had been passed on merits, had not been challenged and could not be reviewed by the same court.

Before the High Court, the defendant contended that the trial court had wrongly required him to lead evidence before the plaintiff. Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that Order XVIII Rule 1 CPC recognises the plaintiff’s ordinary right to begin but does not impose an inflexible obligation upon the court to record the plaintiff’s evidence first in every case.

The High Court explained that the order of evidence may be determined with reference to the facts of the case, the admissions made by the parties, the nature of the issues and the party upon whom the relevant burden lies. If a plea raised by the defendant strikes at the root of the plaintiff’s action and its determination may dispose of the suit, there is no legal impediment to requiring the defendant to prove that plea first.

Since the defendant had claimed ownership by adverse possession and the specific burden of establishing that plea rested upon him, the trial court was justified in directing him to lead evidence first. The defendant could not invoke the plaintiff’s right to begin as though it created an independent right in his favour to lead evidence last.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition and upheld the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, directing the defendant to lead evidence first.