B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated September 28, 1991, passed by the Civil Judge, Pali, by which the learned Civil Judge partly allowed the application under Order 6 Rule 5 C.P.C. It is only against this partly dismissal of the application that the petitioner has filed this revision petition.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Babu Lal, Ramesh Kumar and Mahendra Kumar filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and fixation of the standard rent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Pali against the petitioner. Summons were issued to the defendant. After the issuance of the summons, an application under Order 6 rule 5 head with Section 151 C.P.C. was moved by the defendant. It was averred in the application that the allegations made in the plaint are not specific and the allocations are vague and, therefore, the plaintiffs may be asked to supply better particulars and to explain the averments made in the plaint. This application was opposed by the plaintiffs. The learned Civil Judge, by his order date September 28, 1991, allowed the application under Order 6 rule 5 C.P.C. only in part and directed the plaintiffs to supply better particulars with respect to ten -twelve Thankarniya mentioned in far 7 of the application to far as the remaining prayer with regard to purnishing of the better particulars from the plaintiffs, as desired by the defendant, that request was refused by the learned lower Court. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the averments made in the plaint are vague and not specific and the plaintiffs cannot be saved from the liability of furnishing the better particulars by saying that the defendant has knowledge of the facts required to be stated by the plaintiffs. According to the petitioner, the plaintiffs have not stated in the plaint that what was the basic rent of the suit -premises on January 1, 1962. He has further submitted that the nature of the defendant firm has, also, not been mentioned in the plaint. Why the suit was not filed earlier though the rent was not paid for last eight -nine years, was not stated by the plaintiffs, which are the necessary particulars necessary to the disclosed by the plaintiffs otherwise the suit is not maintainable.
(3.) SO far as the particulars regarding the basic rent on January 1, 1962, is concerned, the plaintiffs have specifically stated in the plaint that they purchased the shop on August 25, 1981, and what was the basic rent of the suit premises on 1.1.62 he is not in a position to state. The premises in question was given on rent to the defendant by the predecessor -in -title of the plaintiffs and, therefore, they cannot be asked to furnish these particulars.;