CHHANGANI, J,—This revision raises an interesting question as to the interpretation of O. 16 R. 1, Civil Procedure Code, as amended by the Rajasthan High Court.

2. The revision came up for hearing on 10th February, 1971. The learned counsel for the parties pointed out that a number of revisions against orders passed by subordinate courts on varying interpretations of O. 16 R. 1 C. P. C. have been pending in this Court and that the subordinate courts have passed contradictory orders almost in similar circumstances and suggested that the hearing of the revision may be adjourned and all advocates interested in assisting the Court for the proper interpretation of O. 16 r. 1 C.P.C. should be given an opportunity to do so. The case was, therefore, adjourned for hearing today, and a number of similar revisions were also listed for hearing.

3. I have heard Mr. A. L. Mehta for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Sishodia for the respondent. The other counsel appearing in other cases and the advocates who were interested in assisting the Court for the proper interpretation of O. 16 R. 1 were also allowed to place their views before the Court.

4. The learned counsel very much emphasised the need of layi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document