Ratanlal vs Radheshyam - 1990 Supreme(MP) 675

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. S. Machalpurkar.
For the Respondent: Maheshwari.

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 14. R. 5 and S. 155 – application for framing additional issues rejected – rejection not resulting in failure of justice – cannot be interfered wit in revision.
       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 11, R. 14 and S. 115 – interrogatories disallowed being not connected with suit – no Interference in revision called for.
       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 16, R. 6 and S. 115 – production of account books refused being not pleaded – order not liable to be questioned in revision.
        Short Note
       1. This is a revision filed by the defendant against the order dated 1 – 8 – 88 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore – Mhow in Civil Suit No. 1 – B/86 whereby the learned lower Court has dismissed the defendant's three applications, namely, one under order 14, rule 5 CPC the other under order 11, rule 14 CPC and the third for requiring the plaintiff to produce the daily cash account – book and imposed cost of Rs. 100/ – for granting adjournment to the defendant who had not kept his witnesses present on 1 – 8 – 88 which was the date fixed for evidence of parties.
       2. The learned lower Court dismissed the application of production of cash account books of the plaintiff on the ground that the said document was not mentioned in the pleadings. The application for framing additional issue was dismissed since the defendant wanted framing of an issue on the question of admissibility of evidence. The defendant's application under order 11, rule 14 CPC for answers to the interrogatories was disallowed on the ground that the interrogatories were not connected with the documents in suit and also because such an application cannot be allowed at the stage of evidence.
       3. The defendant was not ready with his evidence on 1 – 8 – 88, which was the date fixed for evidence of parties, and therefore, while granting the defendant's prayer for adjournment, the learned lower Court imposed a cost of Rs. 100/ –
       Held : Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I do not find that the impugned order occasioned a failure of justice or cases irreparable injury to the applicant so as to call for an interference in the exercise of revisional powers under section 115 of the CPC. Revision dismissed.