SURESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UMESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.02.2017 whereby the application moved under Order 10 Rule 1 CPC read with Order 8 Rule 1 CPC for appearance before the Court has been disposed of.

(2.) Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the pending suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell, an application dated 19.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) invoking the provisions of Order 10 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 and Order 8 Rule 1 CPC was moved by making specific averment in para 2 with regard to filing of vakalatnama by one Shri Narender Singla on behalf of defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 13 to 27 and 29 (hereinafter called as "first set of defendants") and another vakalatnama for defendant Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 (hereinafter called as "second set of defendants") but the Court below on the basis of the statement of Mr. N.K. Singla disposed of the application whereas the statement was only confined to the first set of defendants.

(3.) Mr. Alok Jain, assisted by Mr. S.C. Mhane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Court below has not followed the provisions of Rule 1 and 2 of Order 10 CPC. There has not been adherence to the aforementioned provisions which would not only help the Court but also to the parties at variance for proper adjudication of the lis. The purpose of admission and denial is to cut down the litigation on the facts and documents, which are not in dispute, enabling the parties to prove the same in accordance with law, thus, the order is not sustainable in the yes of law.