ELKA BIR Vs. SURESH CHANDRA BIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated March 15, 1986 by which the trial Judge (IV Addl. District Judge, Allahabad) required the applicant, who is defendant in the suit, to file her written statement. On May 16, 1986 this Court stayed further proceedings in the suit and directed the applicant to serve the plaintiff, namely, the husband who is impleaded as the sole-opposite party in the Revision. Some affidavits were exchanged between the parties after this order and the matter was initially heard on July 18, 1986. The trial Judge was directed to dispose of the prayer made on behalf of the defendant-applicant for a direction being given to the husband to produce certain documents in regard to which no specific order was found to have been passed by the learned Judge. The matter was heard by the trial Judge in pursuance of the order of this Court and an order recorded on July 26, 1986 That order has also been brought on this record of the present Revision along with an application made on behalf of the defendant-applicant seeking amendment in the memorandum of Revision, by being permitted to urge some further grounds.

(2.) I have heard Miss. Bharti Sapru for the applicant and Sri Yatindra Singh plaintiff-opposite party.

(3.) The limited controversy which deserves attention at the present stage is whether the defendant be required to file her written statement without a direction being given to the plaintiff-opposite party to produce certain documents said to be in his possession. A copy of the application under Order l l rules 12 and 14, C.P.C. read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. made on behalf of the applicant before the trial Judge is annexure I to the amendment application. In paragraph 6 of this application are mentioned the documents which the applicant desired to be produced before she was required to put in her written statement. The trial Judge has dealt with these documents in his order dated July 26, 1986. He has observed that the production of these documents is not necessary for purposes of the filing of the written statement by the defendant.