ORDER :- This is an application of the plaintiff for revision of the order dated 10th December, 1969 rejecting his application to withdraw a statement made by his counsel under Order 10, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The material facts are as follows :-

2. The plaintiff applicant filed a suit for ejectment of the defendants from the premises in question and for recovery of arrears of rent and damages, inter alia, alleging that the defendant No. 1 was the tenant of the premises and the defendant No. 2 was a sub-tenant He alleged that defendant No. 1 had illegally and without the permission of the plaintiff sub-let the said premises to the defendant No. 2. Both the defendant filed their separate written statement The defendant No. 1 in his written statement pleaded that after about 1¼ or 2 year of the taking of the shop in suit on rent an agreement was arrived at between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 who was working at the shop as one of the employee of defendant No. 1 under which the tenancy of the shop in suit, the establishment and the business running therein were to belong to defendant No. 1 but the work at the shop was handed over to the defendant No. 2 who was to pay to the defendant No. 1 charges for each garment made or tailored at the shop according to the agreed rates. He further alleged that the defendant No. 1 sub-let the shop in suit to the defendant No. 2. In this written statement the defendant No. 2 alleged that he was not sub-tenant of the defendant No. 1 and supported the case set up by the defendant No. 1. On 26th May, 1967, the trial Court after framing the issues recorded the Statement of the counsel for the plaintiff tinder Order 10, Rule 2, Civil P.C The learned counsel for the plaintiff stated, inter alia, that the tenancy was created in 1966 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 1 sub-let the portion to the defendant No. 2 about 5, 6 months prior to the issue of notice. On 2nd December, 1969, an application 70-A-1 was filed by the plaintiff for withdrawing the said statement. It appears that when the application was taken up on 2nd December, 1969 the learned counsel for the parties agreed that the said application should be decided at the time of the final disposal of the suit The Court below therefore, fixed 10th December, 1960 for final hearing. However, on 8th December, 1969, the defendant filed an objection to the aid application of the plaintiff dated 2-12-1969 and by another application he prayed Chat the application of the plaintiff and the objections thereon should be disposed of before the hearing of the suit. The Court below, therefore, heard the parties on the application 70-A of the plaintiff and the objections thereon filed by the defendant and opposed the impugned order.

3. It was contended on behalf of the applicant that the aforesaid statement was not recorded under Rule 1 of Order 10, Civil P.C. but was recorded under Rule 2, of that order. The learned counsel argued that the provisions of Rule 2 did not entitle the Court below to record any statement of a counsel for the parties, such statement could be recorded only under Rule 1 and that too for the purpose of admission or denial of neb allegations of fact as are made by the respective parties to the suit Rule 2 of Order 10 provide for the oral examination of a party to the suit or his companion. It did not provide for the oral examination of the counsel for the party. It was, therefore, urged that the statement of the counsel purported to have been recorded under Rule 2 of Order 10, Civil P.C. by the Court below was not an admission of the plaintiff and, was, therefore, not binding on him. He could, therefore, point out the inaccuracy in the statement and seek withdrawal thereof. The learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contended that the statement of the counsel for the plaintiff was recorded by the Court below for ascertaining the date or the period when the sub-tenancy was said to have been created b