MOGULLA ALIAMMA Vs. SAMBA YELLAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.119 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Warangal, are the petitioners. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. Their plaint case is that they purchased the suit schedule property jointly which was subsequently partitioned between plaintiff and others. The defendants claiming title to the land are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' enjoyment.

(2.) The defendants filed an application under Order VI Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for brevity) seeking a direction from the trail Court to the plaintiffs to furnish particulars as to (i) when the division took place between the plaintiffs and Sailu; (ii) who was the scribe and elders for the division of the lands; (iii) the date, month and year of alleged joint purchase and (vi) the names of scribes and attesters and payment of consideration amount. The application being I.A.No. 265 of 1997 was opposed by the plaintiffs contending that the provisions of the Order VI were complied with by the plaintiffs duly pleading the material facts and that the defendants by filing the application are trying to extract the evidence from the respondents and therefore such application is not maintainable. The trail Court relying on the judgment in A.H.BHAT v.K.R. PICTURES came to a conclusion that under Rule 5 of Order VI the defendants is not entitled to seek a direction to the plaintiffs to disclose their evidence. Aggrieved by the order dt.13.11.1997 dismissing I.A.No. 265 of 1997, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed,

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars required by the defendants would only result in better statement of the nature of the claim of the plaintiffs and by dismissing the defendants' application the lower Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested it in. The learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the defendants are not entitled to ask for evidence as to the particulars of date, month and year of division, mediators presence during the partition and the names of scribe and attesters, who witnesses execution of the document and payment of consideration.