SAINT KABIR EDUCATION TRUST Vs. PRITAM CHAHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been directed against the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by Civil Judge (JD), Fazilka. By this order the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC for directing the plaintiff to furnish better particulars relating to pleadings made in para 11 of the plaint. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents.

(2.) MR . Sandeep Jasuja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection that against the impugned order dated 23.8.1996, the revision petition under section 115 CPC was not maintainable as the impugned order did not determine or adjudicate right or obligation of the parties in controversy. In support of his submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in Firm Ralya Ram Mela Ram v. Kalu Ram, AIR 1950 Calcutta 149. The learned counsel also submitted that the particulars called for by the plaintiff were neither necessary nor relevant for the purpose of preparing the written statement and as such there was no merit in this petition. In support of this submission he placed reliance on a judgment of the Karnataka High Court in A.H. Bhatt v. K.R. Picture Combines, AIR 1987 Karnataka 101.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order. In the case of Harvinder Kaur v. Godha Ram, 1979 PLJ 562, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that