Judgment RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, J. 1. Both the civil revision applications relate to the same issues and they have, accordingly, been heard together and are now being disposed of by this common Order. 2. Civil Revision No. 918 of 2004 has been filed against the Order dated, 4th December, 2003 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IV, Begusarai in T.S. No. 85 of 2001, by which the application of the opposite party under Order 10 Rule 1 A, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed. 3. Civil Revision No. 908 of 2004 has been filed against the Order dated, 16th April, 2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IV, Begusarai in the said Title Suit No. 85 of 2001, by which he has rejected the application of the Defendant-petitioner under Order 47, Rule 1 under Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for review and recall of the Order dated, 4th December, 2003. 4. The facts relevant to the determination of the controversy involved herein are that the Plaintiff opposite party filed Title Suit No. 85 of 2001 for specific performance of contract directing the Defendant to execute a sale deed in terms of Mahadanama (Agreement for sale) dated, 29th November, 1999 with regard to schedule-1 land of the plaint after receiving balance consideration amount of Rs. 35,000. The case of the Plaintiff-opposite party was that the Defendant-Petitioner being in need of money had after negotiation, agreed to a price of Rs. 96,000 for sale of the land in question, out of which an amount of Rs. 61,000 was paid by the Plaintiff on 29th November, 1999 and the Mahadanama was executed in her favour. Further the parties agreed that the remaining amount of Rs. 35,000 will be paid at the time of execution of sale deed latest by 31st July, 2000, which was subsequently extended to 31st March, 2001 after legal notice was sent by the Plaintiff. However, when the Plaintiff failed to execute the sale deed the suit was filed. 5. The Defendant-Petitioner after appearing in the suit filed his written statement in which he denied that the Mahadanama was ever executed by him or he has to sell the land or he had negotiated to sell the disputed land for the said sum of Rs. However, when the Plaintiff failed to execute the sale deed the suit was filed. 5. The Defendant-Petitioner after appearing in the suit filed his written statement in which he denied that the Mahadanama was ever executed by him or he has to sell the land or he had negotiated to sell the disputed land for the said sum of Rs. 96,000 or for any amount and further took the plea that on account of constant harassment by his daughter-in-law and in Order to get rid of her and only to create a document without receiving any amount, he had signed a series of blank papers and taking undue advantage of which, the opposite party manufactured the Mahadanama and filed the false case. 6. Thereafter, the issues proposed by the parties were considered and the same were also framed. The Plaintiff was required to lead her evidence first. At that stage an application was filed on 30th June, 2003 by the opposite party under Order 10 Rule 1 A, 2, 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ascertain from the Petitioner whether he admits or denies the allegations made in the plaint as well as in the said Petition and the proceedings of the Rules under Order 10B adopted and the Defendant be orally examined under Order 10 Rule 2 of the Code. The Defendant-Petitioner filed the rejoinder Petition stating that in the written statement, the Defendant has clearly and categorically denied the facts mentioned in the plaint and the allegations made regarding Mahadanama, and there was no ambiguity or vagueness in making the denial and further controverted each and every allegation made in the petition and, thus, nothing remains to be ascertained by the Court at this stage of the suit making preposterous conclusion without full-fledged hearing of the suit. 7. By the impugned Order dated, 4th December, 2003, the Court below without assigning any reason directed the Defendant-petitioner to be personally present in Court so that he may be questioned by the Court under the provisions of Order 10. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the Petition for review on 11th February, 2004 under Section 47, Rule 1 and under Sec. 151 of the Code for reviewing the said Order, which was also rejected by the impugned Order dated, 16th April, 2004. 8. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the Petition for review on 11th February, 2004 under Section 47, Rule 1 and under Sec. 151 of the Code for reviewing the said Order, which was also rejected by the impugned Order dated, 16th April, 2004. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the provisions of Order 10, Rules 1 and 2 could not have been invoked in the manner and at the stage as they have been done in the present matter, after the issues had already been framed and the matter was pending for leading of evidence by the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the trial must proceed in a forward manner and it is not expected of the Trial Court to go back once the issues are framed under Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After that stage, the Court must proceed under Order 18 for hearing of the suit and examination of the witnesses.The Court at that stage cannot be permitted to go back to ascertain whether allegations in the pleadings are admitted or denied under Rule 1 Order 10, which is done at the first hearing of the suit and evidently before the issues are framed; it can act under Rule 2 where the Court may orally examine at the first hearing of the suit such of the parties to the suit appearing in person or present in Court, as it deems fit; and may orally examine any person, able to answer any material question relating to the suit, by whom any such party or Pleader is accompanied. It is further submitted that Order 10 Rule 2(2) permits the Court to orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court or any person able to answer any material question, who is accompanying such party, and not subsequent thereto for the same. The said power is meant to be exercised only before the issues are framed and not subsequently. Once the issues are framed then the matter can only be decided on the basis of the evidence led by the parties and not by oral examination of the parties. 9. Learned Counsel further submits that it is evident from the written statement filed by the Petitioner that the entire allegations made in the plaint have been denied specifically and nothing remains in the said written statement which requires elucidation. 9. Learned Counsel further submits that it is evident from the written statement filed by the Petitioner that the entire allegations made in the plaint have been denied specifically and nothing remains in the said written statement which requires elucidation. Moreover, the Court itself had no confusion in the matter either in the first hearing or subsequently before the issues were framed regarding the matters in dispute between the parties. The power even under Order 10 Rule 2 can only be exercised before framing of the issues, and after the issues have been framed, there was no further question of going back to this provision of the Code. 10. Learned Counsel further submits that the Orders in question are no Orders at all as the first Order is totally non-speaking merely directing the Defendant-Petitioner to be personally present in Court for answering the question whereas the second Order is in greater detail, but it does not give any reason as to why the examination and the oral examination of the Defendant was required at such a belated stage. 11. In support of the aforesaid contentions, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mt. Mango V/s. Pram Chand. AIR 1962 Allahabad 447 in Paragraph No, 11 of which it has been held as follows: 11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the Authority of Manmohan Das. V/s. Mt. Ramdei, AIR 1931 PC 175 and contended that the statement under Order 10, Rule 2 CPC is intended only for the purpose of clarification of pleadings relating to the suit and should not be allowed to supersede the evidence. 12. Learned Counsel further relies upon the aforesaid Privy Council decision in the case of Manmohan Das and Ors. V/s. Mt. Ramdeo and Arir.: AIR 1931 Privy Council 175, wherein it has been held as follows: Before considering the case on its merits their Lordships desire to draw attention to the procedure which has been adopted in the taking of the evidence. At the trial before the Subordinate Judge the evidence first recorded is that of the Defendant, Behari Lal, who is described as a "Court-witness" and appears to have been called into the witness-box by the Judge himself. The record before their Lordships discloses no justification for this unusual proceeding. At the trial before the Subordinate Judge the evidence first recorded is that of the Defendant, Behari Lal, who is described as a "Court-witness" and appears to have been called into the witness-box by the Judge himself. The record before their Lordships discloses no justification for this unusual proceeding. No doubt under Order 10, Rule 2, any party present in Court may be examined orally by the Court at any stage of the hearing and the Court may if it thinks fit put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party. But this power is intended to be used by the Judge only when he finds it necessary to obtain from such party information on any material questions relation to the suit and ought not to be employed so as to supersede the ordinary procedure at trial as prescribed in Order 18. 13. Learned Counsel also relies upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Pritpal Singh Kohli V/s. Smt. Surjit Kaur and Anr:. AIR 2001 Delhi 363, in Paragraph No. 7 of which it has been held as follows: 7. The issues were framed. Till that stage, the Plaintiff did not insist on recording of the statement by the Defendant No. 1 on this question. After the issues are framed and even the evidence of the Plaintiff has started. Provisions of Order 18 CPC would come into play. At this stage, it will not be appropriate to direct the Defendant No. 1 to give her statement as demanded by the Plaintiff in this application. The object of the examination under Order 10, Rule 2 CPC is to ascertain the matters in dispute and not to take evidence or ascertain what is to be the evidence in the case. Thus examination under this rule is not intended to be a substitute for a regular examination on oath. 14. Learned Counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned Order. It is submitted that the Court has power under Order 10 Rule 2(2) of the Code, at any stage of the case, to orally examine any party and, thus, the same can be done even after framing the issues and the discretion of the Court in this regard was rightly exercised and ought not to be interfered with. It is submitted that the Court has power under Order 10 Rule 2(2) of the Code, at any stage of the case, to orally examine any party and, thus, the same can be done even after framing the issues and the discretion of the Court in this regard was rightly exercised and ought not to be interfered with. It is submitted that in the written statement, the Petitioner has denied having received legal notice and execution of Mahadanama, but accepts that he has obtained permission of the Court to sell the land in question and, therefore, there is vagueness in the statement of the Defendant which the Court has rightly asked him to reply. 15. In support of the aforesaid proposition, learned Counsel for the opposite party relies upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balmiki Singh v. Mathura Prasad and Ors.: AIR 1968 Allahabad 259, in Paragraph No. 10 of which the Court has considered the applicability of Order 10 Rule 2 in the following words: Evidently, it does not relate merely to the allegations in the pleadings. It provides for oral examination of the party or companion of the party able to answer any material questions relating to the suit. There is no limitation in this rule that the questions must be limited to the allegations specifically made in the pleadings. Even the phrase any material questions has only been used in connection with the ability of the companion of the party to answer it and the rule says that the party or such a companion may be examined orally by the Court. I agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondents that this examination cannot take the place of evidence. As held by their Lordships of the judicial Committee in AIR 1931 PC 175 (supra) the Court would go wrong if under this provision it chose to examine any person as a witness.These provisions are not meant to take the place of Order XVIII. At the same time it would be incorrect to say that the oral examination by the Court would be limited to the admission or denial of the specific allegations in the pleadings. Nor does the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council lay down any such proposition. 16. At the same time it would be incorrect to say that the oral examination by the Court would be limited to the admission or denial of the specific allegations in the pleadings. Nor does the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council lay down any such proposition. 16. Learned Counsel also submits that against the impugned Order the Civil Revision is not maintainable, since the Order cannot be considered as a case decided, as no right of the party has been decided by the impugned Order. In support of the same, learned Counsel relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kamla Prasad Roy and Ors. V/s. Binod Kumar Roy. 1989 PLJR 426, in paragraph No. 13 of which the said proposition has been considered. 17. Further he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society V/s. Swaraj Developers and Ors.: AIR 2003 SC 2434 for the said proposition. 18. On a consideration of the rival submissions and the various cases cited by the parties, it is evident that the Court below has not acted in the manner as provided in Order 10 of the CPC. So far as the application of Rule 1 of Order 10 of the Code is concerned, the same is clearly confined to elucidating from each party or his Pleader whether he admits or denies such allegations of fact as are made in the plaint or written statement of the other side and as are not expressly or by necessary implication admitted or denied by the parties against whom they are made. Thus, it is evident that under Order 10 Rule 1, the Court is only required to record the admission and denial of the parties with respect to such allegations of fact whether in the plaint or the written statement of the other side, which have not been specifically admitted or denied by the parties concerned. 19. So far as the application of Rule 2 is concerned, Sub Rule (1) thereof evidently relates to the first hearing of the suit in which the Court may orally examine the party to the suit appearing in person or present in Court or any person accompanying the party or his Pleader for the purpose of elucidating the matter in controversy. So far as the application of Rule 2 is concerned, Sub Rule (1) thereof evidently relates to the first hearing of the suit in which the Court may orally examine the party to the suit appearing in person or present in Court or any person accompanying the party or his Pleader for the purpose of elucidating the matter in controversy. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 2 may of course, be utilised by the Court to orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court or any person accompanying him or his Pleader who is available to answer material question relating to the suit. Thus, Sub-rule (2) also does not confer any jurisdiction upon the Court to direct a party to appear in Order to answer the question. It is evident from the Scheme of Order 10, as also held by the Privy Council and subsequent decisions cited above that the same is not meant to take the place of evidence of the parties on oath before the Court and are merely meant for elucidating the matter in controversy and to clarify the view that may exist in the mind of the Court. Under Rule 2(2), the Court has been given the discretion to orally examine any party appearing in person or present in Court or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit by whom such party or his Pleader is accompanied. 20. It does not appear that the Court below took any action to examine any party, who had appeared in Court or any person able to answer material questions or even the Pleader of the party in question in Order to elucidate the matter in controversy. The power of the Court to call a party to appear and answer material question only arises where the Pleader of any party, who appears, or any such person accompanying a Pleader as referred to in Rule 2, refuses or is unable to answer any material question relating to the suit and the Court is of the opinion that the party, whom he represents, ought to answer the material question. Only under such circumstances, the Court may exercise its power to direct the party to appear in person and answer the question of the Court as provided by Rule 4 of Order 10. Only under such circumstances, the Court may exercise its power to direct the party to appear in person and answer the question of the Court as provided by Rule 4 of Order 10. It is evident from the facts of the present matter that straightaway on the application made by the Plaintiff, the Court has directed the Defendant - Petitioner to personally appear and answer questions without complying with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Code, which could have been done by the Court below. In the said circumstances, it has to be held that the Court below has not complied with the pre-condition for the exercise of power under Rule 4. 21. Moreover, it is evident from the Scheme of Orders 10,14 and 18 of the Code that normally the power under Order 10 is expected to be exercised before framing of the issues under Order 14. The said position is evident from Sub Rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order 14, which provides that at the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and after examination under Rule 2 of Order 10 and after hearing the parties or their Pleaders, ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the case appears to depend. It is, thus, evident from the Scheme of the Code that Order 10 is essentially to be utilised for the purpose of obtaining clarity regarding the material questions of facts in controversy in the suit, so that the various issues of fact and law may be correctly framed by the Court. Once the issues are framed then barring exceptional circumstances, it is not expected of the Court to again, after framing of the issues, go back to exercise the power conferred under Order 10, Rule 2, although the same is not totally prohibited by the Code. As held by the Privy Council and the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner as well as by the opposite party, the correct procedure after the issues are framed is for the Court to move on to the provisions of Order 18 and proceed with the recording of evidence in the case. 22. As held by the Privy Council and the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner as well as by the opposite party, the correct procedure after the issues are framed is for the Court to move on to the provisions of Order 18 and proceed with the recording of evidence in the case. 22. The Court below if it intended to proceed in the matter even after framing of issues to go back to the provisions of Order 10 Rule 2 then it was expected of it to have recorded its reasons as to what impelled it to go back even after the issues have been framed. No such reasons are found either in the impugned Order dated, 4* December, 2003, which is a cryptic Order without assigning any reason or even in the Order dated, 16th April, 2004 passed upon review in which the Court has merely considered the fact that it has the power to orally examine even after issues are framed and has not given reasons as to what impelled it to go back upon the provisions of Rule 10 when issues have already been framed by it. 23. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the position of law as considered above, this Court is of the view that the impugned Orders dated, 4th December, 2003 and 16th April, 2004 being totally non-speaking Orders and contrary to the Scheme of the Code, are no Orders in the eye of law. Both the said Orders are, accordingly, set aside and the revision applications are allowed.