IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. S. SINHA
RAGHUBIR SARAN - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA KUMAR - Respondents
CIV. REVN. 503 Of 1983
Decided On : 07/05/1989
O. VI R. 5 - Civil Procedure - Court justified in requiring further details in pleadings
Fact of the Case:
In Original Suit No. 36 of 1979, defendants raised a plea regarding the valuation of the suit and the property, but did not provide details. The court ordered them to furnish further details.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the pleadings lacked precision and justified the requirement for further details, dismissing the revision without costs.
Issues: Defendants raised a plea on the valuation of the suit and property without providing details.
Ratio Decidendi: Under O. VI R. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court can order the furnishing of further and better particulars of any matter stated in the pleading.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed without costs, and the interim order was discharged.
( 1 ) THE list has been revised. nobody appears for the parties.
( 2 ) IN Original Suit No. 36 of 1979, Chudhari Krishna Kumar v. Raghubir Saran, pending in the Court of Judge. Small Causes, Moradabad, the applicants, who figure as defendants, raised a plea to the effect that the suit was wrongly valued. They further asserted that the value given in Schedule Ka had been wrongly given. And that the real price given by plaintiff was much less. It was also the plea of the applicants that the value of the property shown by the plaintiff was more than the marked value. In support of these pleadings the applicants did not give any detail. By means of the order dated 25th August, 1982, impugned in the instant revision, the applicants have been called upon to give details.
( 3 ) UNDER R. 5 of O. VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Court can always, in all cases, order furnishing of a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading.
( 4 ) OBVIOUSLY, the pleadings, noticed earlier, lack precision. The Court below was, therefore, perfectly justified in requiring the applicants to give further details, and in doing so it did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of its Jurisdiction.
( 5 ) THE revision has no force and is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs. The interim order stands discharged. Petition dismissed.
.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.