JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– The first mentioned application being G.A. No. 824 of 2002 has been taken out on Master's Summons dated 27th February, 2002 by the defendant, namely Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited for rejection of and/or taking the plaint of the file in the aforementioned suit and the second application being G.A. No. 927 of 2002 taken out on Master's Summons dated 1st March, 2002 by the plaintiff is for amendment of the plaint, as suggested in green ink in a copy of the plaint annexed to the petition and consequential relief. Before taking up of hearing of both the matters it was made clear to both the parties, the fate of the subsequent application would be depending upon the result of the first application, naturally, in the event the first application is dismissed, then, the second application will be allowed as a matter of course, as the nature of proposed amendment is innocuous in nature. 2. Mr. Sarkar, learned Senior Counsel contends in support of the demurer action, that the plaint does not disclose cause of action, as the same lacks material particulars in support of the allegation of sub-letting and/or assignment for getting relief of eviction decree. According to him the nature of the allegation is such which needs particulars with so much of sufficiency that the defendant would understand the allegation and/or case to answer it. Unless, these particulars are there, under the law, it cannot be said that there is disclosure of causes of action. In other words, absence of material particulars in this action tantamount to non-disclosure of cause of action. In support of his allegations he has drawn reference to two English cases, one is reported in (1) AER 1936 (1) 287 and another in AER 1874 (re-print 1874-80) 1684. 3. He also contends that in the event the plaint deserves to be rejected on the ground of non-disclosure of causes of action it must be done as a whole not in part thereof. He has sought reliance for this proposition on a Supreme Court decision reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487 . 4. Mr. Ranjan Deb, Senior Counsel, appearing with Mr. He has sought reliance for this proposition on a Supreme Court decision reported in (1982) 3 SCC 487 . 4. Mr. Ranjan Deb, Senior Counsel, appearing with Mr. Surajit Mitra, contends that this demurer action is wholly mala fide, as it is a ploy to gain time, inasmuch as on 17th of January 2002, the petitioner prayed for time to file written statement waiving service of Writ of Summons and such time was granted. He submits no ground has been made out for rejection of plaint. Aforesaid contention of Mr. Sarkar do not find place in the petition in support of the Master's Summons. He contends referring to Paragraph-7 of the said petition, it is merely mentioned that the allegation contained in the plaint cannot constitute any cause of action for the present suit. This allegation in the petition is not enough to maintain demurer action. He contends that it will appear from the plaint upon its plain reading that the suit is based on the allegations of unauthorized and illegal sub-letting and assignment and these allegations are sufficient to maintain a suit and for which no particulars is necessary. His further contention is that absence of particulars even material ones and in case where particulars are necessary under the rule of pleading, do not non-suit the plaintiff altogether. 5. His learned Junior Mr. Mitra on the first day while arguing relied on a decision of the Punjab and Harayana High Court, reported in (4) AIR 1976 Pun. and Har. 316 (FB), on the proposition that the plaint cannot be rejected as a whole and in certain cases part rejection is permissible. 6. Having heard respective contention of the learned Counsels before dilating and/or adverting to the question whether the plaint can be rejected as a whole or part, I intend to consider whether the allegations of sub-letting and/or assignment needs any particulars in order to constitute a complete cause of action or not. Mr. Sarkar has sought reliance on the English decision as above. Mr. Sarkar has sought reliance on the English decision as above. In the case of Bruce v. Oldham Press Ltd. reported in AER 1936(1) 287, English Court has ruled without the sufficient particulars a libel action cannot be maintained, in that case factually the allegation given in the plaint originally for a defamation suit, did not relate to nor the same had any link with or, identify the plaintiff so as to put the defendant with notice to answer. So an order was passed by the Master directing the plaintiff to give particulars. This order was upheld by the Appeal Court. The aforesaid decision however, does not lay down the law that the non-disclosure of material particulars resulted in rejection and/or dismissal of the suit altogether, in fact, in that case only an order was passed for giving particulars not for rejection of the plaint. 7. The other decision cited by Mr. Sarkar is reported in AER 1874-80 1684, was relied on for the same proposition and in fact this decision was referred to in the above decision reported in AER(1) 287. 8. Therefore, both the aforesaid two decisions are of no help of Mr. Sarkar's case. 9. Under the rule of pleading of our country the Legislature has provided expressly where material facts and particulars are to be stated under the provision of Order 6 Rules 4 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions are quoted hereunder :–– Order VI Rule 4 – "Particulars to be given where necessary.––In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, willful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as the exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading." Order VI Rule 5 – "Further and better statement, or particulars.––A further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading, may in all cases be ordered upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just." 10. The nature of the cases mentioned in Rule 4 where particulars are necessary, however, the aforesaid instances cannot be exhaustive rather illustrative, in 'all other cases' mean esjusdem generis and in case where without particulars not only the adversary but a man of ordinary intelligence will not understand the case at all. The whole idea for giving particulars in a case is to make known the adversary as to what case is to be met. Here is a case of unauthorized subletting and assignment, in case of this nature the essential ingredients of the allegation in order to constitute a complete cause of action would be pleading of transfer and/or assignment of the suit property to a third party by the defendant/tenant. It cannot be within the knowledge of the plaintiff to whom it has been transferred, it is for the defendant/tenant to say so. The plaintiff can give particulars of those facts, which would be within its knowledge either personal or derivative. Therefore, in order to maintain a suit for eviction on the ground of assignment and transfer and parting with possession no particulars is necessary. At the highest it will be a question of evidence by way of cross-examination, or to give rise to furnish particulars and it cannot be integral part of cause of action. 11. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sarkar that the plaint lacks material particulars, so much so it does not constitute any cause of action. 12. Under those circumstances I feel the authorities cited by both the parties as regard the rejection of plaint, altogether or part, are not dealt with at all since this issue does not call for consideration in view of the above decision. So I dismiss this application and costs of this application will be cost in the cause. 13. In view of the dismissal of the above application, amendment of the plaint is allowed, therefore, there will an order in terms of prayers (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Master's Summons. However, amendment shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of serving a signed copy of the minutes of this order. 14. 13. In view of the dismissal of the above application, amendment of the plaint is allowed, therefore, there will an order in terms of prayers (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Master's Summons. However, amendment shall be carried out within three weeks from the date of serving a signed copy of the minutes of this order. 14. It appears that none of the defendants has filed any written statement and in view of the order of amendment of the plaint I think both the defendants should be entitled to file written statement within 3 weeks from date. There will be a cross order for discovery within fortnight thereafter. Inspection forthwith. 15. Parties would be entitled to pray for early hearing of this suit before appropriate Bench. There will be no order as to cost in this case either.