JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) On March 10, 1981 the plaint was registered as a suit. More than fourteen years have passed by since then and written statement is yet to be filed. Why this delay? The explanation is (if at all it can be called one) that there was an application under Order 6 Rule 5 and under Order 7 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (I.A. 176/82) calling for better particulars and some documents. It came in the way and what is more unfortunate is that it has still not been disposed of. As if it was not enough it was followed by yet another application by the defendant bearing I.A. 3967/92 calling for the dismissal of the suit. Dismissal was sought on the ground that orders passed in respect of application under Order 6 Rule 5 had not been complied with. Let me first refer to those orders. The first is of September 3, 1985. It was passed by the Joint Registrar on the Original side. It reads :- “ANapplication (I. A. No. 176/82) was filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code . Counsel for the plaintiff stated that he would file all the requisite documents. The plaintiff has filed documents in two Installments. Counsel for the plaintiff says that she will verify and if any further documents are in her possession she will file the same within four weeks. No further opportunity will be given for the purpose. To come up on 30th October, 1985.”
The next is of October 6, 1988. I may reproduce the same also. It runs are under: “IN this suit filed in the year 1981 an application under Order 6 Rule 5, Order 7 Rule 14 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was away back filed in the year 1982. Thereafter, plaintiff’s Counsel took about four years to file the reply. In between before the filing of the reply as many as 330 documents in pursuance of the application were filed. From the perusal of the order dated 3rd September, 1985 of the Deputy Registrar, I find that the learned Counsel for the plaintiff had undertaken on that date that he would file all the requisite documents. In view thereof, according to learned Counsel for the defendant all the documents have not yet been filed as claimed by him in the application. In these circumstances, this I.A. be listed for arguments on 27th October, 1988.”
The third order which needs to be referred to and reproduced, is of November 16, 1988. It says: “IT has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that no other documents except the one which have already been filed are in power and possession of .the plaintiff and as such is not in a position to file further documents. In this view of the matter, the plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit to this effect, before arguments on I.A. No. 176 of 1982 are heard. Let the requisite affidavit be filed within four weeks. Be listed on 31st January, 1989.The list of documents filed in Court today by the plaintiff has been placed on record.”
Besides reference to the said orders what more needs to be mentioned is that the affidavit referred to in the order dated November 16, 1988 saw the light of the day in the year 1992. The plaintiff by that affidavit took the plea that all the documents in its power and possession had been filed and that no other document was in its power and possession.
(2) Frankly speaking I see nothing in those orders which may invite an order of dismissal of the suit. But then one fact remains and it is that the defendant has been asking for better particulars and for certain documents so as to enable it to file a proper written statement. We all know by now that Order 6 Rule 5 is a salutary provision. Its object is to enable the opposite party to know what case it has to meet. It prevents a surprise at the trial. It avoids prejudice which may be caused by obscurity or incompleteness of the pleadings. The Court by insisting upon a party to plead its case plainly, fully and completely not only helps itself in having a clearer view or a firmer grip of the case, it also gives the other side its due.
(3) Mr. S.N. Marwah, Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant appeared to me (and I hope I am correct in my perception) to entertain only two grievances against the plaintiff. The first is what he termed a non-committal stand on the claim before the E.C.G.C. He wanted to know as to whether any such claim had actually been put in and if so on what date and with what fate. As per him in case any such claim was put in the defendant was entitled to the copies of the relevant documents. His second grievance is with regard to the bank statement of account demanded by the defendant and yet not supplied so far.
(4) With regard to the first grievance I need not detain myself for long. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that neither any claim was filed nor the plaintiff was required to file any such claim under the agreement. If no claim was preferred as claimed, I need go no further.
(5) Coming to the second grievance, I have been assured that the plaintiff would apply for a duly authenticated statement and if made available by the bank, it would be filed in Court within a month. I may clarify here that the word “if” has been used as the Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the record might not be available with the bank. Of course, that is understandable. But then, let me add a word or two. In case the bank statement referred to above is not filed within a month then in that case the plaintiff shall not be entitled to put it in evidence at a later stage. I may also clarify that the learned Counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that no other document is in the power and possession of the company. I have been obliged to mention this because at one stage the plaintiff had taken the stand that remaining documents would be filed at the stage of admission/denial of documents. This then disposes of the applications of the defendant. Since I am not required by the learned Counsel for the defendants to say any more on the said two applications, let the written statement be filed by 27th July, 1995. Advance copy befurnished. Replication may be filed by 4th September, 1995. Put up before the Court on 21st November, 1995.