This second appeal is concluded by concurrent finding of facts of both the Courts below. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming that 10 lechas of land purchased by him was dispossessed by the defendant. Both the Courts below found that this story of dispossession set up by the plaintiff has not been established and having arrived at this finding the suit was dismissed and there was an appeal and that was also dismissed. 3. The only substantial question of law formulated in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment is bad in law for non observance of Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC. This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Order 6 Rule 4 provides inter alia as follows: "Order VI Rule 4 : Particulars to be given where necessary - In all cases in which the party pleadings relies on any misrepresentation, fraud^ breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplifed in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading." 4. The purpose of this Order 6 Rule 4 is that the opponent should be able to know what is the real point in dispute and what case he has to meet. This Rule has been incorporated to narrow the issue and protect the party charged with improper conduct from being taken by surprise. A party must give all particular, details so that on the principle of natural justice, the party may know what case he is to meet and also to raise proper defences on that basis. Fraud being on objective fact known to the party complaining, particulars of it must be given. 5. A written statement was filed, thereafter the plaintiff did not pray before the Court for better particulars as provided under Order 6 Rule 5. That being the position, this substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal shall not be question of law and accordingly, this second appeal shall stand dismissed, However, I leave the parties to bear their own cost. As this second appeal has been dismissed, any petition filed subsequently in this case also shall stand rejected. 6. Heard Sri BK Das, learned Advocate for the appellant and Sri BK Goswami, learned Advocate for the respondent.