M.C. JAIN J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 28.8.1982, whereby the defendant-petitioners applications under Or. 10, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., dated 2. 12. 1981 and 10.5.1982, were rejected.

2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for rendition of accounts against the present petitioners and two other defendants. Defendant No. 1 Bhanwarlal filed his written statement on 8.5.1981, Thereafter written statements were filed by the other defendants. On 10.7.1981, the plaintiffs moved an application for permission to file additional written statement under Or 8, Rule 9, C.P.C. This application of the plaintiffs has not so far been disposed of. On 11.8.1981 the defendant Bhanwarlal moved an application for admission and denial of the original notice said to be signed by the plaintiff Shyamsunder, as a plea has been taken by him in his written statement that the plaintiffs suit is barred by time. A further application to the same effect was presented by the defendant Bhanwarlal on 2.12.1981 and on that very day, he moved an application under Or. 10, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, for recording the statements of the parties namely the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1. A further application was submitted by him under the same provisions on 10.5. 1982. in which he prayed that the statement of Shyamsunder may first be recorded and thereafter the applications of the parties may be heard and decided.

3. It may be stated here that the original notice submitted by defendant No. was denied by the plaintiffs counsel on 17. 4. 1982, although the plaintiff Shyamsunder was present on that date. It may also be stated that the defendant No. 1 also moved an application under Or. 14, Rule 2, C.P.C, for hearing and deciding the issue of limitation. It was stated in the application dated 10. 5. 1982 that the notice was denied by the plaintiffs counsel only with a view that the application under Or. 14, Rule 2, C.P.C, presented by the defendant may not be allowed. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, rejected both the applications, presented under Or. 10, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

4. At the out set it may be stated that the examination of the party or his pleader or any companion of the party under Or. 10, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, can be made at the first hearing of the suit and not before. The expression "at the first hearing of the suit" would mean at the stage when issues are required to be framed. Admittedly that stage has not come in the present case. The question of oral examination of the party or his pleader or the companion of the party under Or. 10, would arise only when the entire pleadings of the parties come on record. In the present case the plaintiffs application under Or. 8, Rule 9, C. P. C, for filing additional written statement, is still pending consideration of the Court. In case the plaintiffs are permitted to file the additional written statement or rejoinder, then that would equally be a pleading from the side of the plaintiffs and in connection with the framing of the issues, that pleading would also be relevant.

5. But the question is whether the trial court has examined the provisions of Or. 10, Rule 2, C.P.C.. in its correct perspective. It would be proper to examine the change in law, which has taken place by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Rule 2 of Or. 10 has been completely substituted and besides that Or. 14, Rule 1. sub-rule (5) has also been amended. For facility of reference, it would be proper that the provisions of Or. 10, Rules 1 and 2 and sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of Or. 14, C.P.C., may be reproduced. They read as under :-"Or. 10-

R.1. Ascertainment whether allegations in pleadings are admitted or denied.

At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall ascertain from each party or his pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement if any) of the opposite

Click Here to Read the rest of this document