D R PURI Vs. KAMLESH SAWHNEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed on behalf of defendants underSection 151 read with Order XVI, Rule I -A of the Code of Civil Procedure and in thisapplication it has been prayed that the applicants be permitted to examine one ShriTilak Raj Kassal as their witness, but whose name inadvetantly was not includedin the list of witnesses filed on behalf of the defendants. Notice of this applicationwas given to the plaintiff and the plaintiff in his reply has opposed this application.Thereafter a rejoinder has also been filed on behalf of the applicants.

(2.) Mr. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants drew myattention to paras 2 and 3 of the written statement on merits and submitted that inthese paragraphs it has clearly been averred that the defendants came into contactwith each other through Shri Tilak Raj Kassal, the property dealer. He, therefore,contended that the said witness was very much relevant for the adjudication of thedispute between the parties and the defendants should be permitted to examinethis witness. Learned Counsel, however, submits that he will produce this witnessat his own responsibility before the local Commissioner, who has already beenappointed in this case to examine the witnesses. In support of his contention,learned Counsel placed reliance on ajudgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 925.

(3.) Ms. Chandra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the present application has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings.