AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.C. Agrawal, J.—Against the order passed on an application under order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present revision has been filed.
Counsel for the petitioner stated that as the facts and details of the partition between the petitioner and the respondents have not been clearly and cogently given, the petitioner is entitled to know about the details of the same. His argument was that the respondents had vaguely, asserted about the partition in the family. Without being given the year or month of the same, it is not possible for the petitioner to pin it down.
I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and, in my opinion, the submission is not tenable. The petitioner and the respondents are the brothers and the books of accounts are with the petitioner. From the books of accounts, it can be gathered as to when did the partition took place. It is not the function of the court dealing with revision u/s 115 of the CPC to judge the correctness of the order as no jurisdictional question is involved.
The revision is, therefore, dismissed.