S. K. MAL LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants revision against the order dated Jan. 15, 1977 of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, by which the learned Civil Judge has ordered for striking out para 3 and para 2 of the additional pleas of the written statement It may be stated that the learned Civil Judge dismissed the plaintiff-non-petitioners application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C. P. C. and allowed the application under Order VI, Rule 16. C. P. C. The plaintiff has not challenged the order dismissing his application under Order VIII, Rule 9, C. P. C. The defendant has challenged that part of the order dated Jan. 15, 1977, by which the application of the plaintiff under Order VI, Rule 16, C. P. C. was allowed.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-non-petitioner instituted a suit for Rs. 6,000/- against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of a promissory note dated Mar. 13. 1963. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the pronote after borrowing Rs. 3,000/ -. In para 3 of the written statement, the defendant raised a plea that the plaintiff is be-namidar and that his (plaintiffs) father Madanlai used to do money lending business in the name of the members of his family. It w