Mirza Abdul Kareem Bai Khalidi vs Shaik Abdul Aziz and Others

Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.—This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 11.4.2007 made in I.A. No. 2424 of 2006 in O.S. No. 318 of 2006, by which a petition filed by the 1st defendant u/s 151 of the CPC seeking a direction to the plaintiff to furnish better particulars viz., details of each document pertaining to sale made in Sy.Nos. 736, 737 and 738 situated at Bommakal Village, was dismissed.

1st respondent-plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No. 318 of 2006 against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 herein for permanent injunction. It may not be necessary to delve various facts narrated in the petition or canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

The short point that arises for consideration in this revision is as to whether the petition filed u/s 151 of the CPC (for short ''the Code") is justified or not?

3 The contention of the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent is appealing. Order VI of the Code deals with pleadings generally. Order VI Rule 4 of the Code deals with particulars to be given where necessary. Order VI Rule 5 of the Code deals with further and better statement or particulars. However, the said Rule 5 of Order VI was repealed by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999 (46 of 1999) with effect from 1.7.2002. When the said provision of law itself is not in existence, this Court is of the considered view that invoking inherent powers of the Court below as provided u/s 151 of the Code and filing an application for the very same relief, which was repealed, is not maintainable. With a view to bring judicial reforms and disposal of pending cases and to curtail the long time that is being taken in view of procedure provided for under the Code, the Government thought it fit to bring certain amendments and thus Act 46 of 1999 was introduced. Rule 4 of Order VI of the Code deals with particulars to be given where necessary i.e., when a party relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, he is under an obligation to give the said details and shall also be stated in the pleadings. As Rule 5 Order VI of the Code also is to the very same effect with little variation, the framers thought it fit to omit the said provision of law from the Code and thus Section 16 was introduced in the said Amendment Act deleting the provision of law i.e., Rule 5 of Order VI of the Code. When the very intention of the legislature is to curtail the procedural delays and in that process Rule 5 of Order VI of the Code was deleted/omitted, in my considered view, the party to the suit cannot approach the Court and again file an application invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court u/s 151 of the Code. In fact, the law on this aspect is very clear that when the law is silent and no provision is made in the CPC or in the relevant law then it is for the Courts to invoke its inherent powers and do certain things in the interest of justice. When the particular provision of law i.e., furnishing of better statement or particulars is intentionally omitted, in my considered view, invoking the powers of the Court u/s 151 of the Code is totally unwarranted. Hence, I find no merit in this revision and is liable to be dismissed.

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.