GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ). THIS revision petition arises from an order of the Chief judge City Civil Court secunderabad given on 24th September, 1964. The plaintiff filed an application to permit her to file a rejoinder. The defendant resisted this petition. The lower Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the petition by the order under revision. The principal contention of Sri K. A. Muktadar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that since the rejoinder is inconsistent with the facts alleged in the plaint the lower Court was wrong in permitting such a rejoinder to be filed as it would be violating Order 6, rule 7 Civil Procedure Code.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the implications of this argument, it is necessary to mention a few facts. The plaintiff in paragraph 3 of her plaint stated:" On 8th July, 1954 the defendant for good and valuable consideration executed in England a promissory note in favour of Mr. Gille Goudchau for the sum of £8,381 sterling exclusive of the interest for value received agreeing to pay the said sum together with interest twelve months after the said date of execution either to the said Mr. Gille Goudchau or order. "in paragraph 5 of the pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document