KUDAL, J.:—This is a revision petition under Section 115, C.P.C. against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated September 2, 1975.

2. The facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 76, 281.21. Along with the plaint some documents were also produced. On behalf of the plaintiff an application under O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2, CPC was filed on July 4, 1975, wherein it was contended that the admission and denial of the documents on behalf of the defendant Vishnu Kumar were not specific, and as such, the defendant Vishnu Kumar may be examined orally. On behalf of the defendants, a reply was submitted on July 8, 1975 stating therein that the admission and denial of documents have been in accordance with General Rules (Civil), 1952, and that there was no occasion for examining the defendant Vishnu Kumar as a duly authorised and instructed counsel is appearing on his behalf. The learned District Judge on September 2, 1975 held that the defendant Vishnu Kumar should appear personally in the Court for examination under the provisions of O. 10 R. 4, CPC. The defendant Vishnu Kumar feeling aggrieved against this order of the learned District Judge has come up in revision before this Court.

3. On behalf of the defendant-applicant Vishnu Kumar, it has been contended that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in ordering that the defendant should appear in person for examination under the provisions of O. 10 R. 4, CPC. It was contended that the application made by the plaintiff pur-posted to be one under O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2, CPC; and thus there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to have passed an order under the provisions of O. 10 R. 4, CPC. It was further contended that if a duly authorised and instructed counsel was appearing on behalf of the defendant applicant, then under the provisions of O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2, CPC, questions ought to have been put to the learned counsel, and if the learned District Judge felt that still some further elucidation was necessary, then alone the powers under O. 10 R. 4, CPC could be invoked, and the defendants could be directed to appear in person. Reliance was placed on Sadeshwar Narain vs Qadir Bakbsh (1) Parmarath vs. Krishna Dayal (2) and Chetanram vs. Mangharam (3).

4. On behalf of the plaintiff respondent, it was contended that though the application was made under O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2, CPC, yet an order could be passed under O. 10 R. 4, C.P.C.. It was also contended that the case law cited by the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also contended that the learned lower Court had jurisdiction to decide the application which was made under O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C, and that a Court of Revision has no jurisdiction to interfere in such interlocutory orders. It was also contended that a Court of revision shall interfere only when there is an improper exercise of jurisdiction or that there has been a patent illegality in the procedure.

5. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case carefully perused. The plaintiff applied under O. 10 Rr. 1 and 2 C.P.C for examination of the defendant, as the plaintiff contended that the denial and admission of the documents were not specific, and a vague reply has been given. The learned District Judge considered the admissions and denials made by the learned counsel for the defendant Vishnu Kumar, and felt that it needed further elucidation as the admissions and denials were not of a specific character. The ratio decidendi laid down in the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the defendant-applicant is that if the party has a duly authorised and instructed counsel then the counsel should be initially examined under the provisions

Click Here to Read the rest of this document