HANAMAWWA AND OTHERS Vs. NAGAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter coming up for orders in regard to vacating the interim stay, is taken up for final disposal and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, is disposed of by the folk wing order.

(2.) The revision petitioners are defendants 5 to 7.

(3.) When defendant No. 1 was in the witness box, Counsel for the plaintiff sought an adjournment to cross-examine defendant No. 1, who was examined as D.W. 1. That adjournment was granted and the case was posted by the trial Court to 26 8.1987 from the earlier date, 11.8.1987. On 26.8.1987, as evidenced . by the certified copy of the order sheet produced by the contesting respondents, it is seen that the Advocate appearing for defendant No. 1 i e. the witness who was in the box and Advocate appearing for defendants 2 to 4 retired from the case. On behalf of defendants 5 to 7, the petitioners in this Court, an application was filed under Order 17 Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking adjournment That application was rejected by the Court. The order sheet further records that D.W. 1 was fully examined and some more documents were marked in D-series I.A. No. 8 was filed by defendants 1 to 4 seeking to mark some documents by consent. As the Counsel appearing for plaintiff had no objection, l.A. 8 was allowed and those documents were marked as Exts. D-2B and D-3C and the case was adjourned to 29.9.1987 for further evidence of defendants On 29.9.1987, Advocate for petitioners defendants 5 to 7 was present. D.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined. Counsel for defendants 5 to 7 filed on that day l.A. IX read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. & objections were called on I.A. IX by 26.10.1987, 26.10.87 arguments were heared in regard to the objections filed to l.A. IX. I.A. IX had been filed seeking the recalling of the witness-D.W. 1 for cross-examination by Counsel for defendants 5 to 7. I.A. IX was dismissed on the ground that they had no right to cross-examine D.W. 1 for the reason that they had not filed the written statement and they had lost their right in the suit properly. Aggrieved by the same, the. present revision is preferred inter alia contending that having permitted the Counsel to cross-examine D.W. 2 and other defence witnesses, there was no justification for the trial Judge to dismiss I.A. IX on the two grounds set out.