Argument in courts : when should we go in

The sequence of arguments (plaintiff first, defendant next, or vice versa in appeals/revisions) is just a matter of procedure, not preference.

The judge listens to both sides and usually reserves judgment only after hearing both

.Judges, especially experienced ones, are trained to focus on facts, evidence, and law, not on who argues first or second.

So, merely because one side argues first doesn’t mean their submissions are “impressive” or decisive, the court will always rely on the weight of reasoning and evidence, not on the order.

First Advocate’s Argument:

Sets the framework of the case — facts, issues, evidence, and legal propositions.

If clear and well-structured, it helps the judge follow easily.

But it can also lock the advocate into a position, and the opposing side can exploit gaps later.

Second Advocate’s Argument:

Gets the advantage of responding point-by-point to what the first said.

Can clarify misunderstandings or expose inconsistencies.

If presented confidently and backed by authority (case law, statutory provisions), it can often leave a stronger final impression, since judges remember the last arguments more vividly.

You may please be aware that “who argues better” matters more than “who argues first.”

That sounds like AI. But Sir, in your perosnal experience, if you could share any anecdotes, I would love to learn. 

Sir, generally  the information provided by AI  is nothing but a collection of various advocates views and opinions on various topics.

Since my personal professional experiences also go inline with the information hence I posted as opinion to your query. in my previous post.

Practically speaking, in a civil suit, it is the plaintiff counsel who has to present his case before court through his arguments based on his plaint pleadings, documents he relied upon and the the citations supporting his pleadings as well as on the basis of the witness  depositions made by both the sides by highlighting the pros in his favor.

Then the defendant counsel will be permitted to present his objections and the faults he observed in the plaintiff's case with the support of his own pleadings and he may even rely upon the documents he produced  as well as the flaws in the documents the opponent produced before court and his own side citations to establish his case. 

However if the plaintiff is still dragging the case without making his final arguments, then the court may permit the defendant counsel to present his side arguments  to which the plaintiff side counsel will be permitted to express his objecions as well as his own contention.

As clearly narrated in my previous post, the judge will not take any hasty decision to pronounce the judgment by any impressive arguments presented by either side.

Ji. He will not take decisions on the basis of the person going first. That is understood. 

So do you generally let the other party argue or go yourself first? 
Also, an added question: 

I was in an argument on a murder case which had turned into a fat file. presenting all the statements, contradictions, evidence on file would take 3 days to complete so I summarized the points and fit it into a 2 hour final argument. 

No the dilemma I was left in was: What if the judge does not consider the points that I did not go specifically into and only gave an aerial view on? 
But if I go too lengthy, the judge might even lose interest in the whole story, which is a practical problem. 

I might sound very naive and childlike, but these are real thoughts which I am sharing here for the gurus to share their expert opinion on. 

You can use your prudence and wisdom to handle the situation as per circumstances.

The person who has moved to the Court i.e., plaintiff herein shall have precedence to submt his/ her arguments / submissions.

It is subject of debate, which is not possible on this platform due to various constraints, you will agree and appreciate.

In a civil case, the peson who has moved the court (palintiff/petitioner) will have the precedence. But in a criminal case, it is the prosecution that has to set the ball rolling.