P.D.Kudal, J. - (1.) This is a revision petition under Section 115, CPC against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated September 2, 1975.
(2.) The facts of the case which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 76,281.21. Along with the plaint some documents were also produced. On behalf of the plaintiff an application under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed on July 4, 1975, wherein it was contended that the admission and denial of the documents on behalf of the defendant Vishnu Kumar were not specific, and as such, the defendant Vishnu Kumar may be examined orally. On behalf of the defendants, a reply was submitted on July 8, 1975 stating therein that the admission and denial of documents have been in accordance with General Rules (Civil), 1952, and that there was no occasion for examining the defendant Vishnu Kumar as a duly authorised and instructed counsel is appearing on his behalf. The learned District Judge on 2-9-1975 held that the defendant Vishnu Kumar should appear personally in the Court for examination under the provisions of Order 10 Rule 4, CPC. The defendant Vishnu Kumar feeling aggrieved against this order of the learned District Judge has come up in revision before this Court.
(3.) On behalf of the defendant-applicant Vishnu Kumar, it has been contended that the learned District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in ordering that the defendant should appear in person for examination under the provisions of Order 10 Rule 4, CPC. It was contended that the application made by the plaintiff purported to be one under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, and thus there was no occasion for the learned District Judge to have passed an order under the provisions of Order 10 Rule 4, CPC. It was further contended that if a duly authorised and instructed counsel was appearing on behalf of the defendant-applicant, then under the provisions of Order 10 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, questions ought to have been put to the learned counsel, and if the learned District Judge felt that still some further elucidation was necessary, then alone the powers under Order 10 Rule 4, CPC could be invoked, and the defendants could be directed to appear in person, Reliance was placed on Sadeshwar Narain v. Qadir Baksh, AIR 1918 Oudh 429. Parmarath v. Krishna Dayal, AIR 1933 All 517 and Chetanram v. Mangharam, 1956 Raj LW 339.;