ABDUL WAHID Vs. RAM NARAIN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against an order dated 18.5.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 60/94 by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur City Jaipur, whereby he rejected the defendant petitioner's applications filed one u/O.6 R. 5, Code of Civil Procedure and the other under section 15 read with Sec. 151 CPC, seeking better particulars and for return of the plaint to the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(2.) Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that the plaintiff non-petitioner filed his suit in the Court of the District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur for the relief of recovery of possession of suit premises and arrear of rent amounting to <del>&#2352</del> 900.00 on the ground of bona fide requirement, denial of title and sub-letting, and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant petitioner from selling, transferring or alienating the suit premises to any other person. The said suit was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City Jaipur. On 12.1.1995 and 8.3.1995, the petitioner sought adjournment for filing written statement. On 5.4.1995, he filed two separate applications, one u/O. 6 R.5 Code of Civil Procedure for better particulars and another application under section 15 read with Sec. 151, Code of Civil Procedure for returning the plaintiff for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

(3.) In Para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiff referred to the terms of agreement as regards to the adjustment of an advance of <del>&#2352</del> 3,000.00 paid by the defendant as also his asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises but did not advert to the material fact as to whether the said agreement was oral or in writing and as to the date on which he had asked the defendant to vacate the premises. The learned trial Court by the impugned order held inter alia that the fact as to whether the agreement was oral or In writing was not material one to be clarified in the plaint as it was a matter of evidence and that such a fact could be elucidated by putting relevant question in cross-examination. The trial Court further held that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to disclose the exact date falling in the month of July, 1994 when the plaintiff is alleged to have asked the defendant to vacate the suit premises. The learned Judge also took into account the fact that the defendant petitioner had sought two adjournments for filing written statement and while rejecting the said application, it also saddled the petitioner with a cost of <del>&#2352</del> 200.00.