CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a sad case of the plaintiff who feels aggrieved by the order dated 3rd of february, 1983 made by the Court of the IV additional Small Causes, Bangalore City, on i A. NO. VIII in S. C. No. 7778 of 1980.

( 2 ) IA. NO. VIII was filed by second defendant under Order VI Rule 11 C. P. C. asking the Court to strike her out as a party as there was no cause of action disclosed in the plaint against her relatable to the relief prayed.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner filed his objections inter alia contending that one ramu - husband of the first defendant was the tenant and that the second defendant was also residing in the suit schedule premises and she had at sonu point of time offered to pay the rent and in fact sent the rent by money order.

( 4 ) BUT, as noticed by the learned Small causes Judge, there is variance in the pleadings between the facts pleaded in the plaint on the one hand and the objections filed to IA. No. VIII. The Court below proceeded to dismiss 1a. No. VIII on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the second defendant.

( 5 ) THE only allegation made in the plaint concerning second defendant is to be fou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document