Short Note : The non-applicant has filed the suit against the applicant for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the suit premises for his residence and for the residence of his family. It is alleged that house No. 22 Chhota Sarafa, Indore in which the non-applicant at present resides has fallen to the share of his brother in a family arrangement and as the non-applicant's brother wants him to vacate it, the non-applicant requires the suit accommodation for the purpose of residence. 2. The non-applicant before filing the written statement made an application on 7-9-77 marked as I.A. No. 2 by the trial Court, for better particulars. The trial Court passed an order on 24-9-77 directing the non-applicant to give particulars as to when the family arrangement took place and whether it was oral or in writing. The non-applicant in compliance of the said order made an application for amendment of the plaint to the effect that the family arrangement took place on 26-8-57 and that it was oral. That amendment was allowed. The applicant was then called upon to file written statement but instead of filing the written statement it insisted for the supply of all the particulars as sought in its application dated 7-9-77. The trial Court held that rest of the particulars were not necessary and hence rejected the applicant's prayer. Hence this revision. Held : I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record. It may be noted that the trial Court had already rejected the application for better particulars partly, vide order dated 24-9-77 on the ground that they were not necessary. The applicant did not file any revision against that order and it, therefore, become final. When the non-applicants supplied the particulars as per order of the Court by seeking amendment in the plaint the applicant again reiterated his claim for the particulars which were disallowed by the Court. The trial Court while giving reference of the previous order rejected the prayer of the applicant saying that the particulars sought by the applicant were not necessary. This was, therefore, not a fresh order but the repetition of the earlier order. The applicant, therefore, taking advantage of the repeated order was not entitled to file the instant revision. 3. That apart, the order under Order 6, rule, CPC is always discretionary. This was, therefore, not a fresh order but the repetition of the earlier order. The applicant, therefore, taking advantage of the repeated order was not entitled to file the instant revision. 3. That apart, the order under Order 6, rule, CPC is always discretionary. It cannot be said that the trial Court exercised the discretion arbitrarily. All the relevant particulars necessary for the claim of eviction on the ground of genuine requirement of the suit accommodation have already been supplied by the plaintiff-non-applicant. The demand of the applicant for better particulars is more in the nature of cross-examination which cannot fulfil the requirement of Order 6, rule 5 CPC. The trial Court, therefore, rightly disallowed it.