JUDGMENT 1. - Heard.The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner against the order )f the trial Court whereby, his application for examination of the opposite party under Order 10, Rule 2 (1)(a) CPC was rejected by the trial Court. 2. In the application, the petitioner averred that it would be in the interest of justice, if the opposite party is permitted to be examined u/O. 10 s R. 2(1)(a) CPC. This will facilitate the Court in judging the correct amount of rent, if payable by the petitioner to the opposite party. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Order 10, Rule 2 (1)(a) CPC makes it mandatory after the amendment of 1976 in Civil Procedure Code to enforce the examination on the first date of hearing. Learned counsel for the to petitioner has read the provision of law to me, which is quoted for ready reference herein below : "2. Oral examination of party, or companion of party. (1) At the first hearing of the suit, the Court (a) shall, with a view to elucidating matters in controversy in the suit, examine orally such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and (b)....... 4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is necessary for arriving at a correct determination of rent to examine the opposite party. Further, so far the issues have not been settled, therefore, the Court under this Rule can examine the opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court. One of them being in the matter of Bhanwar Lal Kawad v. Shyam Sunder & Ors., reported in 1983 RLR page 591 , wherein, it has been held as under : "In order to remove that obscurity and vagueness and equivocal character of nature of pleadings, Courts have been empowered u/Rr. 1 & 2 of 0. 10, CPC to ascertain facts and to make the pleadings more lucid and clear by examination of the party or his pleader." 5. It has further been held in this case that the provisions of Order 10, Rule 2 30 CPC are mandatory and they should be followed in letter and spirit. 1 & 2 of 0. 10, CPC to ascertain facts and to make the pleadings more lucid and clear by examination of the party or his pleader." 5. It has further been held in this case that the provisions of Order 10, Rule 2 30 CPC are mandatory and they should be followed in letter and spirit. He has further relied on another case of Chhagan Lal v. Ram Babu reported in 992(2) WLC (Raj.) page 254 wherein, this Court has held as under : "In cases where there is no documentary proof regarding rate of rent and both the parties file affidavits in support of their case, in such circumstances the Court should either examine the parties under Order 10, Rule 1 or should direct the parties to produce the deponents for the cross-examination by the other side so that truth may be ascertained." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner in his application has not averred any point which according to the petitioner was such, which required any elucidation so as to remove ambiguity. The petitioner has failed to enumerate or delineate in clear terms as to what was the ambiguity which required elucidation. Unless the primary requisite was pleaded by the petitioner, there was no question for the Court to resort to any such device which was required for elucidation of ambiguity. Thus, the premises on which the application has been moved lacks bona fides. The application is male fide because the petitioner has tried to resort to approving and fishing inquiry. The first date of hearing had not come, it was only at that stage, the case is examined for framing of issues. It is this stage where the ambiguity can be identified, if any. 7. Order 10 R. 2(1) CPC defines that the examination can only happen at the first date of hearing. It excludes by implication any other attempt to resort to examination under this Rule. Determination of rent is done according to the procedure provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Provisions of Order 10, Rule 2 CPC are not attracted here as a routine. It excludes by implication any other attempt to resort to examination under this Rule. Determination of rent is done according to the procedure provided under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950. Provisions of Order 10, Rule 2 CPC are not attracted here as a routine. That being the position, asking the Court to examine the opposite party under Order 10, Rule 2 (1)(a) CPC at the stage when the first date of hearing was not there, was an attempt to resort to such a situation which amounts to taking advantage of a provision which is not available as a matter of course at the stage when the rent is to be determined. At- the stage of determination of rent. parties are required to base their case on the documents or affidavits. In the instant case, parties have not filed the affidavits. The only piece of evidence is an agreement. So far, it has been adjudicated to be in-admissible by a judgment in a suit which was filed for judging the validity of the agreement. May be that the findings of that judgment are under challenge in appeal. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and have given my thoughtful consideration. 9. In the first place, the examination under Order 10, Rule 2 CPC as law envisages is only limited to the point where the Court generally considers the pleadings of the parties at the first date of hearing. A stage when issues are required to be settled. It is at that stage that the Court is required to examine the pleadings and determine as to whether the facts contained in the pleadings are clear enough to settle the issues. No other contingency or stage of the trial has been contemplated, as far as Order 10, Rule 2 (1)(a) CPC is concerned. 10. The learned trial Court has observed in its order that there is no ambiguity whatsoever. The issues can be settled with comfort and ease. Therefore, the Court has held that it does not deem it fit to make any examination under Order 10, Rule 2 CPC. 11. Now, comes the question of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. in the case of Bhanwar Lal (supra), this Court, has clearly held that in order to remove the obscurity and vagueness, the Court can resort to examination of the opposite party. 11. Now, comes the question of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. in the case of Bhanwar Lal (supra), this Court, has clearly held that in order to remove the obscurity and vagueness, the Court can resort to examination of the opposite party. The trial Court has found that there is no ambiguity in the pleadings and this Court too by hearing both the parties has not come to the conclusion that there ever was any vagueness in 40 the pleadings, except that there was an assertion on the part of the petitioner that he has paid the rent. That being the position, if the Court feels that pleadings are sufficient and clear, then, it is not for the parties to tell the Court as to what is clear enough otherwise, should be understood to be ambiguous. It is the discretion of the Court to arrive at its own conclusion, whether the pleadings are clear or not. If the trial Court has come to the conclusion that pleadings are clear. then it cannot be said that there is an ambiguity. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court will not take upon itself to exercise the discretion of the trial Court. 12. For the case relied upon by the petitioner in the matter of Chhagan Lal (supra), suffice it to say that in this case, the learned Court was of the opinion that where affidavits are filed, parties can be called for examination. No affidavits have been filed in this case. This is a clear distinguishing feature. In any case, the language of Order 10, Rule 2 (1)(a) CPC clearly postulates only one stage that examination under this Rule can be made i.e. at the time of first hearing. No other stage has been envisaged under this Rule where examination can be made. May be that the Court may resort to examination, when it thinks fit. But to ask it as a right and to force it as a mandatory 5 requirement, it is only at the stage of first date of hearing, provided the Court finds that such examination is necessary. Therefore, the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reversing this order of the trial Court does not appear to be well founded. That being the position, no interference is called for. 13. Therefore, the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reversing this order of the trial Court does not appear to be well founded. That being the position, no interference is called for. 13. The revision petition having no force is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******