Chhangani, J. - (1.) THIS is a plaintiffs revision against the order of the Munsif City, Jodhpur dated 7. 7. 1955 dismissing the plaintiff's suit on account of his default in furnishing better particulars of the claim as ordered by the court.
(2.) THE relevant facts are briefly as follows: THE plaintiff instituted a suit on 2. 4. 1955 for the recovery of Rs. 900/- in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur as damages for breach of contract. On 7. 7. 1955, when the suit came for hearing, the defendant put an application requesting the court to direct the plaintiff to furnish better particulars of the claim. THE plaintiff refused to furnish better particulars and consequently, the court ordered the dismissal of the suit purporting to act under O. 6 r. 5 C. P. C. THE plaintiff submitted an application for a copy of the decree-sheet, but was informed that no decree has been prepared in the suit. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present revision. A preliminary objection has been raised that the dismissal of the suit in the circumstances of the case clearly amounts to a decree and, therefore, should have been appealed from and consequently, the revision is not competent. The petitioner's advocate's answer is that the suit having been dismissed by an order and having not been followed by the formal preparation of a decree sheet, it should be treated as a mere order and that he was, therefore, justified in filing the revision petition. Pointing out that orders dismissing suits under O. 9 r. 2 and O. 1 r. 10 C. P. C. do not amount to decrees, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the dismissal in the present case should be treated similarly as one by an order not amounting to a decree. Now, the present dismissal, in my opinion, cannot be equated with the dismissal of suits under O. 9 r. 2 or O. 1 r. 10 C. P. C. In these cases, the Code contemplates an order dismissing the suit There is, however, no provision in O. 6 or elsewhere providing for passing an order dismissing the suit on failure to comply with an order of the court requiring a plaintiff to submit better and further particulars. The dismissal of a suit in such cases will certainly be a dismissal in the general exercise of the powers of the court to dispose of cases by dismissal or rejection and, therefore, must amount to a decree. In this connection, I may refer to Nazir Abbas Sujjat Ali vs. Raza Azamshah Raja Suleman Shah (l), which is a clear authority for the proposition that dismissal of a suit for non-furnishing of particulars under O. 6 r. 5 C. P. C. should be treated as a decree. Besides, I find that in the present case, at some later stage, the court even prepared the formal decree. In view of the clear legal position discussed above and the presence of a formal decree on record, I am quite unable to treat the dismissal of the suit otherwise than a decree. I am conscious of the fact that the plaintiff, on account of the action of the court in omitting to prepare a formal decree at an early stage and refusing copy of the decree sheet on an application of the plaintiff by referring to its absence on record, may have been misled, but that will be hardly a relevant consideration to treat the dismissal as a mere order and to entertain the revision. It will be of course open to the plaintiff in case he files an appeal before a competent court to plead before that court that on account of the action of the trial court, he could not file an appeal and was misled into filing a revision petition and the appellate court will consider his request for extension of time for filing an appeal on its own merits. With these observations, I hold that this revision is incompetent and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. .;