LAXMINARAYAN ENTERPRISES Vs. LAXMINARAYAN TEXTILE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Revisions are directed against the interim orders of the trial Court passed, rejecting the petitioners'-Defendants' I. A. No. II under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and I. A. III under Order 18, Rule 17, r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in O. S. No. 38/1993 pending ex parte on its file.

(2.) ). The said O. S. No. 38/1993 has been instituted by the respondents-plaintiffs against petitioners-defendants for recovery of certain amount of money. It is not in dispute that on service of Court summons, petitioners had put in their appearance through their learned counsel in the suit proceeding and had failed to file their written statement within the time granted by the trial Court and also that the learned counsel appearing for them did not choose to cross-examine the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 at the trial. Therefore, when the case was, on conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, set down for pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners-defendants came forward with the aforesaid applications, viz. I. A. Nos. II and III, praying that they may be permitted to file the written statement and to recall PW-1 for their cross-examination.

(3.) ). Placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Sujatha v. Indian Bank, reported in ILR 1996 Kant 553, as also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, reported in AIR 1964 SC 993, which was followed in the case of Sujatha, the trial Court has passed the impugned order, rejecting the said application on the ground that the defendant would not be entitled to reopen a case at the stage when it was posted for judgment.