Short Note : 1. By this revision the applicant defendant against whom the plaintiff has brought a suit for eviction and arrears of rent, seeks interference with the order made by the trial Court rejecting the application moved by the defendant under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming certain particulars. 2. The lower Court has observed that the application at this stage, was premature and not relevant. After hearing the learned counsel and on going through the contents it is apparent that the order impugned does not call for interference by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant has asked the plaintiff whether the tenancy was oral or was on the basis of any document executed by the defendant. The trial Court was right in observing that the defendant shall first file the written statement and disclose his case whether he admits himself to be tenant. These facts then are to the knowledge of the defendant himself, if the case of existence of tenancy is not disputed. 3. Similarly, the details about the removal of the partition are also not very much necessary at this stage. There is sufficient description of the events in the plaint so as to enable the defendant to make a reply to the allegations made by the plaintiff. 4. The same is the position about the allegation about the need of the plaintiff i.e. for the business of his eldest son. The defendant has not stated in his application that he did not know the name of the eldest son of the plaintiff. The particulars required were for which eldest son the plaintiff needs the accommodation. If the defendant actually did not know the name of the eldest son or is not aware of any son of the plaintiff, he may approach the trial Court afresh by making such specific allegation and claim the particulars of the said son. Revision dismissed.