SURESH VIG Vs. MITTAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner by this revision petition challenged the order dated 23.7.1986, passed by the then Sub-Judge, First Class, closing the evidence of the petitioner, plaintiff in the suit. The learned Sub-Judge had declined the request for an adjournment noting that neither any witness was present nor had any been summoned. It is further recorded that since the respondent/defendant did not want to produce any evidence nor any arguments were addressed vide a separate judgment, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner remained content with challenging the above order in revision and did not prefer any appeal against the judgment dismissing the suit. An objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent on the maintainability of the revision petition, since no appeal has been preferred against the judgment delivered on the same day. The plea being that the impugned order merged into the judgment passed on the same day dismissing the suit and the petitioner was obliged to file an appeal and it was not open to him to challenge the order in revision.

(3.) Before proceeding further with the matter, the facts in brief may be noted:- (i) Petitioner had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.7710.00 against the respondent on the basis of a Promissory Note and a receipt. Issues in the case were framed on 4.3.1986. The case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner on 30.4.1986, when no evidence was led. The case was then adjourned to 23.7.1986. Petitioner is stated to have been out of station on the said date. Counsel, therefore, requested for an adjournment and to be granted another opportunity to lead evidence. It is stated that the petitioner was to bring other witnesses along with him and accordingly, had not taken any steps to summon witnesses. The impugned order declining to give another opportunity was assailed as having caused substantial mis-carriage of justice and vitiated by material irregularity, calling for interference in the revisional jurisdiction.