(1.) By the impugned order dated 13.07.2016 passed on the file of the civil suit of the petitioner (CS No.376/2015), the learned Additional District Judge ordered closure of the opportunity for his evidence which is the direction with which he is aggrieved as agitated by the petition at hand.
(2.) At the hearing, counsel representing the respondents submits that issues were framed by order dated 20.10.2011 and the first witness was examined by the petitioner on 13.07.2016, no steps having been taken for summoning or securing the presence of other witnesses, it being conceded at the same time that the list of witnesses submitted includes 18 names.
(3.) The impugned order does not contain any reasons worth the name as to why the plaintiff was to be denied opportunity to examine witnesses other than his own testimony.