1980 Supreme(MP) 506

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
J.P. BAJPAI, J.
Devhans - Applicant
Vs.
Jagmohan Singh - Respondents
C. Revn. No. 74 of 1975 (G)
Decided On : 29-01-1980

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 115 and O. 6, R. 5 – an order directing dismissal of the suit on the ground of non – compliance of the order regarding furnishing better particulars – revision lies.

       (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O. 6, R. 5 – better particulars sought – required verification from public records – sufficient justification for giving more time.

        Short Note

       1. By this revision, the applicant plaintiffs seek interference with the order made by the trial Court dismissing their suit on the non – compliance of the direction given by the Court regarding furnishing better particulars as contemplated by Order 6, rule 5 CPC. It is true that the applicant had taken earlier time to furnish the particulars, but despite that they did not do so on the date fixed, on the contrary, the plaintiffs prayed for further time which the trial Court refused, and thereafter dismissed the suit on the non – compliance of the order of the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the non – applicants, raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this revision. According to him, the order of dismissal of the suit on the ground of non – compliance of the order of the Court was a decree appeal – able and as such no revision could lie. The learned counsel for the applicant – plaintiffs, placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chamarin v. Budhiyarin, 1975 JLJ 52, to which this question was specifically referred, wherein it has been held that such an order directing dismissal of the suit the ground of non – compliance of the order regarding furnishing better particulars can be examined in revision. The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the non – applicants is, therefore, rejected.

       2. After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court acted with material irregularity in dismissing the suit. The particulars which were sought, required certain verifications from the public records. The plaintiffs, therefore, wanted further time. They were required to state the Samvat year from which onwards entries in revenue records were continuing in a particular manner. In the opinion of this Court, there was sufficient justification for giving more time. Revision allowed.