Kapur, J. - (1.) This is a rule directed against an order passed by Mr. Harish Chander Mital, Senior Subordinate Judge, Simla dated the 13th December 1951 holding that the plaint was not properly stamped and that the plaintiff had not given proper particulars in regard to fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence alleged by her.
(2.) The plaintiff alleges that she is the widow of Dina Nath who died on the 2nd December 1950. She has prayed for separate possession by partition of her. one-third share of the immovable property, the details of which are given in para. 3 of the plaint. She has also prayed for declaration that she-is entitled to one-third share of certain sums of money in different banks and for rendition of accounts. In reply to the plaintiff's claim the defendants denied that she was the lawfully wedded wife of Dina Nath and also raised two preliminary objections which are given in the issues which are: (1) whether the suit is not in proper form? (2) whether the plaint is sufficiently stamped and the plaintiff is in possession of a Part of the property in suit? In regard to Issue No. 1 the learned Judge said that the plaintiff must supply full particulars of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence and in regard to Issue No. 2 the learned Judge held that the plaintiff must pay 'ad valorem' court-fee. The petitioner has come up in revison to this Court and I issued the rule on the 24th December 1951 for today.
(3.) I have heard Mr. Bhagat Slngh Chawla in regard to the first issue and he has submitted that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did in the first instance raise the objection as regards particulars of fraud, etc., but that objection was overruled long time before the present order of the Judge which is under revision was passed. He has also referred me to certain passages from the plaint which show that particulars have been given. In view of this and in spite of the arguments addressed to me by the counsel for the respondents I am of the opinion that no further particulars are necessary,;