Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

CLR No.69 of 2025

Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J

1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel

for the revisionist.

2. Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the

respondents.

3. A Suit was filed by the respondent No.1 for partition and rendition of account, in which the present revisionist, being defendant No.7, filed the counter- claim. Thereafter, the Defendant No.4,5 and 6 filed their written statement to plaint as well as in the counter claim and subsequent thereto, the defendant No.5 filed an affidavit in examination in chief and the same was taken on record by the trial Court. Thereafter, the present revisionist being defendant No.7 filed an application i.e. Paper No.172-A praying for expunging of the statement as given in para No.4 of the affidavit in examination- in-chief by the Defendant No.5 on the ground that the statement as given in para No.4 is beyond the pleading of the written statement. The said application i.e. Paper No.172-A was decided by the order impugned by observing that the said plea will be considered at the stage of final

hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order impugned will seriously prejudice to the revisionist since no opportunity was given cross-examine defendant No.5 in respect of the statement as given in para No.4 of the affidavit filed

in examination in chief.

5. The said application i.e. Paper No.172-A was disposed of by the trial Court by observing that the issue as raised in this application can be dealt with at the stage of final hearing and he is free to cross-examine.

6. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial Court, the instant revision has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial Court failed to consider this aspect that the statement as given in para No.4 of the affidavit in cross examination is beyond the pleading of written statement, but the trial Court decide the application by observing that this issue can be decided at the stage of final hearing, but at this stage, the statement as given in Para No.4 cannot be expunged, since the revisionist has all opportunity to cross examine the defendant No.5.

8. I perused the order impugned and I do not find any illegality in the order since the order impugned, in any manner, will not prejudice to the revisionist and the revisionist has a liberty to cross-examine the said defendant and even otherwise the trial Court rightly said that that such plea can be dealt with at the stage of final hearing.

9. In view of the discussion as made above, the instant civil revision is misconceived and is dismissed being devoid of merit.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)

19.09.2025 R.Bisht