A wrong decision on ordering particulars does not give the High Court the right to interfere in revision under Section 115, Civil P. C.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition for revision of an order made by a learned Subordinate Judge of Asansol ordering the defendants to supply certain particulars of the written statement filed by them.

( 2 ) A suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge in which they prayed for the cancellation of a lease dated 21st May 1946, executed and registered by a predecessor of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that on 22th April 1946 the predecessor of the plaintiffs as karta of a joint family entered into an agreement with defendant 2 for the grant of a lease of certain coal bearing lands. On 21st May 1946, this lease was actually executed by the predecessor of the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that at the time of the agreement another lease was produced and it was agreed that the terms of the proposed lease would be the same as those in the lease which was produced. Defendant 2, it is said, was to draft the lease which he did. The allegation is that he presented a draft lease to the plaintiffs' predecessor representing that its terms were in accordance with the lease which had been produced by the plaintiffs earlier. The plaintiffs relying upon the representation executed the lease which was later registered, but then found that the terms were very different from the terms of the lease which were to be copied in the lease in question.

( 4 ) THE defence was a denial of these allegations and it was pleaded that the final draft was actually settled by the plaintiffs' own pleader and that the pleader was present when the lease was executed and registered. Unfortunately, however, in the written statement a good deal of matter was pleaded which was in fact nothing more than evidence. The application for particulars was an application for particulars of these statements which really amounted to the pleading of evidence. The defendants however invited this application by pleading in the manner inwhich they did.

( 5 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the matter in a rough and ready method. He seems to have held that particulars could be ordered of any matters within the knowledge of the defendants, whereas particulars could not be ordered of any matters known to the plaintiffs. This appears to me to be a somewhat odd rule to apply on the question of particulars. Strictly, many of these allegations made in the written statement should have never been there as they merely amounted to a statement of the evidence which the defendants proposed to produce. That being so, I do not think that on the merits any of the particulars should have been ordered.

( 6 ) THE Advocate-General however on behalf of the plaintiffs has contended that this Court cannot interfere by way of revision under Section 115, Civil P. C. and his argument is that at most all that can be said is that the learned Subordinate Judge decided this application wrongly, and such a decision does not give this Court a right to interfere in revision.

( 7 ) ORDER 6, Rule 2, Civil P. C. provides : "every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved, and shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively. Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in figures. "

( 8 ) AS I have already stated, the written statement offends against Rule 2 of Order 6 in that the defendants pleaded evidence which the rule forbids them to do.

( 9 ) ORDER 6, Rule 5 provides :"a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, may in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just. "

( 10 ) THE learned Advocate-General has contended that if the learned Subordinate Judge has erred in this case, which he does not concede, he merely erred