Short Note : 1. This is a revision filed against order dated 13.4.1978 rejecting defendant-applicant's petition under Order 6, Rule 5 C.P.C. in an ejectment suit. 2. Facts essential for purposes of this revision are that the plaintiff non-applicants in plaint para no. 3 (in ejectment suit) has omitted to state the date of notice to quit. The defendant prior to filing of the written statement submitted an application under Order 6, Rule 5 C.P.C. praying for better particulars on the following points: (a) The date of notice to quit. (b) The basis on which the valuation of suit has been fixed and Court-fee paid thereon. (c) The facts showing the extent of the accommodation in possession of the plaintiff and how the same is insufficient. 3. This application was opposed by the plaintiff and has been rejected by the impugned order. Hence this revision. 4. Although this revision was fixed today only for confirmation of stay order, but by consent of the parties it was heard on merits. 5. Shri K.L. Mangal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application should have been allowed by the trial Court and that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Order 6, Rule 5 C.P.C. Shri S.L. Upadhyaya appearing on behalf of non-applicants supported the impugned order. 6. After having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, I am of the opinion that the revision deserves to be allowed partly. 7. Copy of the plaint supplied to the defendant applicant has been shown to me and to the learned counsel for the plaintiff also. In para 3 thereof there is a blank obviously relating to the date of the notice to quit. This has to be supplied by the plaintiff. If it is not in original plaint, it has to be written in the original plaint also and also in the copy supplied to the defendant. Although technically this matter does not fall within the ambit of Order 6, Rules 5 CPC, yet it is the duty to supply complete copy of the plaint to the defendant. Therefore, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant applicant merits acceptance. 8. As to the point pertaining to the incorrectness of the valuation and inadequacy of the Court-fee paid thereon, it is enough to state that the objection can very well be taken in the written statement. Therefore, the first contention advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant applicant merits acceptance. 8. As to the point pertaining to the incorrectness of the valuation and inadequacy of the Court-fee paid thereon, it is enough to state that the objection can very well be taken in the written statement. 9. As to the details pertaining to the accommodation in possession of the plaintiff and its insufficiency, it is a matter of evidence. The defendant may take appropriate plea in the written statement which he may elect to file. Revision partly allowed.