SUREYA PRAKASH Vs. RAGHUVIR SARAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant-revisionist sought for disclosing of particulars by the plaintiff by means of an application. By an order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge. Senior Division, Barellly in Original Suit No. 151 of 1998 rejected the said application of the defendant-revisionist. Against the said order Civil Revision No. 92 of 1999 was preferred before the learned District Judge. Bareilly. By an order dated 6.11.1999. the learned District Judge dismissed the said revision on the ground of Jurisdiction inasmuch as the valuation of the suit was beyond pecuniary Jurisdiction of the learned District Judge. Therefore, this revision has been preferred along with Section 5 application for condonation of delay on the ground that on mistaken advice the petitioner had been prosecuting revision before the learned District Judge.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the revisionist, the delay Is condoned.

(3.) Order VI, Rule 5 provides that where the Court thinks just, it may ask for better statement of the nature of the claim or of the defence or It may ask for further and better particulars of any matter stated In any pleading. Thus, it appears to be applicable In a case where the pleadings are vague. In AH v. Gobind. ILR 17 Col 840 ; Faqlr v. Thakur. A 1941 O 457, it was held that if the pleadings of either party be too vague, the Court may require him to file further or full statement. But this provision cannot be used for the purpose of fishing out evidence nor it can be used as a guise for delivery of interrogatories. Better particulars are normally asked for at the time of discovery and Inspection as provided in Order XI. Though however, there is no hard and fast rule whether asking better particulars are to precede discovery and vice versa. It is a matter dependant on the discretion of the Judge to be exercised after consideration of the special circumstances In each case as has been held In Waynes Mmerthyr and Co. v. Radford and Co., 1896 (1) Ch D 29 and Miller v. Harper, 1888 (3) Ch D 110. There being no provision prohibiting resorting to provision of Order XI Rule 1, absence of compliance with Order VI, Rule 5 cannot be fatal as is held in Bhakta Charon Malltk v. Nataoran Mallik, AIR 1991 Ori 319.