Whether a plea of non-joinder falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter 'C. P. C.') is the sole question for determination in this petition. The petitioners were plaintiffs in a suit filed in the Court of Munsiff against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in a perfect partition case. As some of the recorded owners were dead at the time of filing of the suit, their legal representatives were made proforma defendants. The main defendants, being defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed written statement wherein one of the plea taken was that the suit was bad for non-joinder of all the heirs of the recorded owner. On the aforesaid pleading in the written statement, an issue was also framed -Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of all the heirs of the re­corded owners.

2. The plaintiffs thereupon filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 5 of the C. P. C. praying for a direction to the main defendants to supply the names and addresses of the heirs of the deceased recorded owners who according to them had not been joined as parties, f he petition was objected to by the defendants. The learned Munsiff by order dated 26. 4. 82 dismissed the petition on the ground, inter alia, that the plea of non-joinder did not fall within the scope of Order 6 Rule 4 or 5 of C.P.C. The aforesaid order has been challenged in the present petition.

3. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners sub­mitted that the learned Munsiff misinterpreted Order 6 Rule 5 of C. P. C. and committed jurisdictional error in rejecting the petition. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the order passed by the learned Munsiff. Rule 5 of Order 6 of C. P. C. reads as follows :

“Rule 5. Further and better statement, or particulars.-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.”

4. It may be observed that Order 6 deals with pleadings. Pleadings has been defined in Rule 1 to mean plaint or written statement. The object and purpose of pleadings is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet in order to have a fair trial. No party can go beyond the pleadings. In the absence of pleadings evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be con­sidered. It is therefore, imperative that essential material facts should be set out clearly and distinctly in the pleadings. It is also the duty of the Court to see that the parties plead their case fully and clearly so that each side know the case of the other. It is in this context we have to read Rule 5 of Order 6 which empowers the Court to order the parties to furnish a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defeace or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading. If the Court on an application filed by one of the parties or otherwise it satisfied that what had been pleaded in the plaint or the written statement is vague or insufficient and further particulars could be furnished by the party concerned, it should direct the furnishing of such particulars. This power is not restricted to any particular claim or defence but it extends to 'any pleading'. Pleading, as stated earlier, has been defined to mean a plaint or written statement. The expression 'pleading' is thus wide enough to take within its sweep all pleas taken by the parties in the plaint or written statement. The plea of non-main­tainability of a suit on the ground of non-joinder of parties or heirs of the recorded owners is also a pleading. A defendant who raises the plea of non-joinder of parties must specifically state who are the persons who ought to have been impleaded. This is necessary to enable the Court to decide how far their absence would affect the 'decision in the suit. If it is not so stated and the pleading is found to Be vague or lacking req

Click Here to Read the rest of this document