BHANWARLAL KAVAD Vs. SHYAMSUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 28-8-1982 whereby the defendant-petitioners' applications under Order 10. Rs. 1 and 2, C. R C. dated 2-12-1981 and 10-5-1982, were rejected.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the present petitioners and two other defendants. Defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal filed his written statement on 8-5-1981. Thereafter written statements were filed by the other defendants. On 10-7-1981, the plaintiffs moved an application for permission to file additional written statement under Order 8, Rule 9, C. P. C. This application of the plaintiffs has not so far been disposed of. On 11-8-1981 the defendant Bhanwarlal moved an application for admission and denial of the original notice said to be signed by the plaintiff Shyamsunder, as a plea has been taken by him in his written statement that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by time. A further application to the same effect was presented by the defendant Bhanwarlal on 2-12-1981 and on that very day he moved an application under Order 10. Rules. 1 and 2. C.P.C.. for recording the statements of the parties, namely, the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. A further application was submitted by him under the same provisions on 10-51982, in which he prayed that the statement of Shyamsunder may first be recorded and thereafter the applications of the parties may be heard and decided.

(3.) It may be stated here that the original notice submitted by defendant No. 1 was denied by the plaintiffs' counsel on 17-4-1982, although the plaintiff Shyamsunder was present on that date. It may also be stated that the defendant No. 1 also moved an application under Order 14. Rule 2. C.P.C. for hearing and deciding the issue of limitation. It was stated in the application dated 10-5-1982 that the notice was denied by the plaintiffs counsel only with a view that the application under Order 14. Rule 2, C.P.C.. presented by the defendant may not be allowed. The learned Additional District Judge no. 1. Jodhpur, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, rejected both the applications, presented Under Order 10. Rules. 1 and 2 C. P. C.