JUDGMENT

Buckland, J. - This is an application to amend the plaint. When the suit came on for hearing on a former occasion several objections wore taken to the form of the plaint, and Mr. H. D. Bose asked for an opportunity to make an application to amend in such a way as to make it clear that what his client seeks is a declaration of title to the whole area of land on which in other proceedings to which his client was not a party it was alleged by the defendant Sreemany that the plaintiff's tenant Surendra Nath Dey had encroached.

2. In para. 12 of the plaint an entirely different encroachment said to have been made by the defendant Sreemany himself upon the plaintiff's land, is alleged. As to that Mr. Pugh then objected that there was no statement in the plaint as to when the cause of action arose. On the application of Mr. H. D. Bose on behalf of the plaintiff I adjourned the hearing in order to enable an application to amend the plaint to be made, and this has now been done.

3. In the course of my order I drew attention to Order 7, Rule 1 (e), Civil P.C., and to the directions given 17 years ago by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J., that no plaint should be admitted unless there be a distinct statement as to when the cause of action arose, and asked for an explanation as to how it had come about that this plaint had been admitted without such a statement. Information has reached me that it was in consequence of a judgment delivered by my learned brother Lort-Williams, J., on 23rd May 1930 in Ramprasad Chimanlal Vs. Hazarimull Lalchand, AIR 1931 Cal 458 in which my learned brother, referring to the practice which had grown up of including in plaints, among others, a statement that the plaintiff's cause of action arose on such and such a date, observed that such statements are not only wholly insufficient but useless and unnecessary. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge considered the requirements of Order 7 at some length and freely criticized the existing practice in regard to the drawing of pleadings, with much of which I am in accord. Though at the moment I am only concerned with the requirements of Order 7, Rule 1 (e), I may say that I have observed of late that many pleadings are less diffuse and less wanting in conciseness than was formerly the case, and no doubt such improvement may be attribute to the observations of my learned brother on that occasion.

4. My learned brother Lort-Williams, J., in his judgment observes:

Rule 1(e) and (f) requires not that a statement should be made that the plaintiff has a good cause of action or that it arose on such and such a date, or that it arose partly or wholly within the jurisdiction but that particulars should be given of the facts. Constituting the cause of action and when it arose, and the facts showing that it arose partly or wholly within the jurisdiction and that this was the meaning and intention of the order of Jenkins, C. J., is I think made clear by his reference therein to O.7, Rule 1 (e) and (f) and to his observations in Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shalimar Works Ltd. [1915] 42 Cal. 85.

5. It was as a result of what the learned Sir Lawrence Jenkins, O. J., had come across in Madras Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Shalimar Works Ltd. (2), that the direction which is cited on p. 193, Edn. 3, of the rules of the original side was given, which is supported by the dates of the judgment in that appeal and of the direction, apart from my personal recollection of the matter, which was of considerable interest to members of the legal profession. If my learned brother moans that the learned Chief Justice meant that the allegation as to when the cause of action arose might be otherwise than most specifically stated I must respectfully dissent, for the learned Chief Justice observed: There is no specific allegation in the plaint when the cause of action arose."

6. It is necessary to distinguish between the two parts of Sub-rule (e) which says that the plaint shall contain