SIKHANDAR SAHEB Vs. HUSENA SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this defendant's revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18th august, 1995 delivered by the prl. Munsiff, mudhol rejecting the defendant-applicant's application under order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. for summoning of Sri l.k. bhosle as a witness, in o.s. No. 26 of 1994. According to the applicant's case, he had to summon Sri l.k. bhosle as a witness in the following circumstances:

(2.) when the case is listed for admission, appearance has been put on behalf of the respondent as well. I have heard Sri basavaraj kareddy, learned counsel for the revisionist applicant and Sri v.t. rayaraddi, learned counsel for the respondent as well.

(3.) on behalf of the applicant, it has been urged that as the plaintiff had denied the existence of u-form, the signing of the u-form and the alleged u-forms were not available on the record and when according to the plaintiff the statement and u-forms were prepared and statement was recorded but they were not available in the record, it was more necessary to summon that witness to prove whether u-form was prepared and signed by the parties and their statements were recorded. The learned counsel submitted that the learned trial court had acted illegally in taking a view that as the plaintiff had denied signing of u-form, the production of person who had prepared u-form, who got the u-form signed was not material and relevant. Learned counsel further submitted that taking erroneous decision as to relevancy and admissibility of the evidence of Sri l.k. bhosle, the learned trial court has acted illegally as well irregularly refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it to provide assistance to the plaintiff to summon him as witness in the court and as such the order suffers from the jurisdictional error.