S.K. MAL LODHA, J.—This is a defendants revision against the order dated January 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 O. VIII, r. 9, C.P.C. and allowed the application under O. VI, r. 16, C.P.C. The plaintiff has not challenged the order dismissing his application under O. VIII, r. 9, C.P.C. The defendant has challenged that part of the order dated January 15, 1977, by which the applica-tion of the plaintiff under O. VI, r. 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 March 13,1963. The defendant contested the suit denying the execution of the pronote after borrowing Rs. 3000/-. In para 3 of the written statement, the defendant raised a plea that the plaintiff is Benamidar and that his (plaintiffs) father Madanlal used to do money lending business in the name of the members of his family. It was also stated in para 3 that as the plainti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document