PADAMCHAND Vs. MUNSHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION under Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. was filed on 7.2.1983 by the defendant seeking direction to the plaintiff to supply the dimensions of the shop in his possession as also a map thereof. Vide order dated 7.2.1983, this application has been rejected by the trial Court stating that the application was moved after the commencement of the evidence and when the dimensions of the shop in question of the plaintiff had already been brought on record, in evidence. Thereafter, more evidence has been adduced. Both the parties are well aware of the dimensions of the shop in possession of the plaintiff. As such, the particulars were uncalled for. Certainly, no grievance can be permitted to be made at the stage of second appeal.

(2.) AN application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking inspection of the suit shop and the accommodation in possession of the plaintiff was filed by the defendant when the trial was over and the case was at the stage of final arguments before the trial Court. The reason stated in the application was to enable the Court to make the better appreciation of the facts. The trial Court vide its order dated 4.1.1984 rejected the defendant's application stating that there was no such ambiguity left in the evidence as required spot being inspected by the Court.