OM PARKASH Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has assailed the orders dated 13.6.2001 and 30.8.2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur. By first order, the Civil Judge has struck off the defence of the original defendant and by the second order, the legal representative of defendant-petitioner Mohant Garib Dass has been allowed to be impleaded but because of the order dated 13.6.2001 striking the defence, the newly substituted legal representative has not been permitted to file written statement. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned two orders, the newly substituted legal representative has filed the present revision petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as unfolded in the pleadings of the parties are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed Civil Suit No. 100/99 on 17.9.1999, for recovery against one Mohant Garib Dass, alleging that a loan of Rs. 3,14,000/- was obtained by the Mohant for planting trees in his land. The original defendant Mohant Garib Dass was served on 17.8.2000. Mohant Garib Dass appeared before to Court on 8.9.2000 which was the first date for filing of the written statement and made a request for supply of documents on the basis of which plaintiff-respondent-Bank has based its claim for non-payment of the loan. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, when the necessary documents were not supplied, an application under Order 11 Rule 14 was filed seeking production of documents. It was claimed that according to the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent in their plaint, may be directed to be supplied to the defendant- petitioner. On 5.12-2000, the plaintiff-respondent requested for time to file reply to the application. Thereafter, on 21.3.2001, the plaintiff-respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17, seeking amendment of the plaint which was allowed on 9.2.2001. With the amended plaint, certain documents were annexed but still the copies of those documents were not supplied to the defendant-petitioner.

(3.) THE legal representative of Mohant Garib Dass filed an application for substitution in August, 2001 as the defence of the original defendant Mohant Garib Dass had been struck off on 13.6.2001. The application was allowed on 30.8.2001 by the Civil Judge imposing the condition that no written statement could be filed by legal representative Om Parkash, however, he would be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to be examined by the plaintiff- respondent. The order dated 30.8.2001 reads as under :