J.V Gupta, J.:— This petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated 14th October 1985, whereby the plaintiff has bean directed under O. 6 R. 5, Code of Civil Procedure to file a break up of his claim in suit, showing the amount of the principal and the interest before the defendant could file his written Statement
2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the defendant-respondent that no revision petition u/s. 115, Code of Civil Procedure, is maintainable against an order passed under O. 6, R. 5 C.P.C in support of his contention Id. counsel relied on Ralyaram Melaram v. Kaluram Agarwala . AIR 1950 Cal 149., wherein it was held that “a wrong decision upon the question whether in the circumstances certain particulars should be ordered or not has nothing whatsoever to do with jurisdiction and cannot be revised under S. 115”
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection I do not find that no revision petition is competeat against the Impugned order. In the precedent referred to above, the question was whether the loan was a commercial loan on net. As regards the present case, the Bank had been directed to file a breakup of its claim in the suit, showing the amount of the principal and the interest which, according to the plaintiff-Bank, was not possible. Thus, the question is if the impugned order is such which could not be easily complied with, whether such an order is liable to be revised u/s 115, C.P.C or not. It is not disputed that if the said order is not complied with, the trial court can either stay the proceedings in the suit, or the plaint may be rejected, or even the suit can be dismissed Under the circumstances, it could not be successfully argued that no revision petition is competent against the impugned order, although ordinarily this Court would not entertain petitions against orders possed U.O 6, R. 5, C.P.C, unless grave injustice is shown to have been caused by the impugned order
4. The present suit was filed on 13th October, 1984. Surprisingly enough, the defendant could not be served in the ordinary course, and ultimately he was served through publication dated 13th June, 1985 On 23rd July, 1985, he took time to file the Written Statement. Again on 6th August, 1985, he was given more time to file the Written Statement On 20th August, 1985, he moved the present application under O. 6, R. 5, C.P.C, to which a detailed reply dated 12th September, 1985, was filed on behalf of the Bank. Thus the conduct of the defendant appears to be to delay the proceedings in one way or the other. Under these circumstances, the application could not be termed at bona fide. Moreover, as observed earlier, in the reply filed on behalf of the Bank to the said application, necessary details were given as to enable the defendant to file his Written Statement. The amounts sought to be realized by the Bank from the defendant were given from time to time in the notices issued by it, and, therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to direct the Bank to file a break-up of its claim, showing the amount of the principal and the interest, particularly in view of the detail reply filed on its behalf wherein it was stated that the principal amount found due rut only means the principal amount but also the amount due on interest which has become part of the principal. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. The defendant is directed to file the Written Statement on or before 12th February, 1986
5. The parties, through counsel, are directed to appear in the trial court on the aforesaid date.
R.M.S
Petition allowed.