SARDAR RAGHUBIR SINGH Vs. BALA DEVI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not surprising for the defendants in the suits for possession to use every tactic to somehow or the other keep on delaying the disposal of the suit for possession. The petitioner is one such defendant.

(2.) In the present case, at the late stage of defendant s evidence, the petitioner /defendant moved an application for amendment which was dismissed by the trial court but a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.4.2014 in CM(M) No. 289/2014 allowed the amendment. However, simultaneously, it was recorded by this Court in CM(M) No. 289/2014 that the petitioner/defendant would complete his evidence in the next three weeks and the entire evidence will be completed by the end of August, 2014 and the suit will be disposed of within four months thereafter.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that one witness Sh. Surender Kumar from the Land and Revenue Department who had appeared as DW-3 appeared again as DW-10 and in his cross-examination while appearing as DW-10 he has stated that there is a discrepancy in the demarcation report exhibited as Ex.DW 2/5 prepared by one Kanoongo Sh. M.S.Jhakar with another demarcation report Ex.DW7/1 prepared by M/s N.K.Engineering for the petitioner/defendant, and therefore, petitioner/defendant pleads that he needs to call Mr. M.S. Jhakar who has prepared the demarcation report Ex.DW2/5 to explain the discrepancy between his report and that report prepared by his other witness DW-7 from M/s N.K.Engineering. It is this application for summoning of Mr. M.S.Jhakar which has been dismissed by the trial court and this order is impugned in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observations of the trial court in the impugned order dated 8.9.2014 for dismissing the impugned application read as under:-