PARAMDEEP SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has impugned the order dated 21.2.2012 passed learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby defence of the petitioner has been struck off under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, as he has not filed the written statement. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,000/ - along with future interest from the date of filing of suit till its recovery. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff happens to be an advocate, who at one stage represented the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and is seeking recovery on account of non -payment of counsel fee. He has represented them and also served legal notices on their behalf to the tenants. They raised dispute with regard to payment of counsel fee. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 is claiming counsel fee from defendants in 31 cases. Petitioner and respondent No. 2 moved a specific application for production of the documents and their details so that they may be in a position to file written statement.

(2.) CONTENTION of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without looking at the documents on which plaintiff/respondent No. 1 relies for his claim, petitioner is not in a position to file written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Order 7 Rule 1 CPC to contend that the particulars of the plaint mentioned in para 4 of the suit do not mention any registration number of the complaint, the date on which it was registered, on which date it was decided and whether it is pending or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to Order 7 Rule 1 CPC which states that the plaint must contain clear and specific particulars, description, facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. Here in this case, respondent No. 1 has failed to furnish the same in spite of the application moved by the petitioner. Reference to Order 7 Rule 5 CPC has been made and it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that plaint should show that defendant is liable to be called upon to answer the plaintiff's demands. It is contended that there is non -compliance of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC specifically as the plaint does not disclose the cause of action nor shows when it arose. Learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to para 12 of the plaint, which reads as under: -

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC when the plaintiff relies upon the documents on the basis of which plaintiff sues or relies then such documents are required to be entered in the list and produced in the court when plaint is presented. When such documents are not in possession of the plaintiff, it shall be stated in whose possession these are. In the present case, petitioner/defendants had sought those documents so that they may file their written statement.