OM PARKASH Vs. MOHINDERJIT SINGH NARULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revising an order dated 21st September 1977 by which the trial Judge declined to examine two witnesses summoned by the petitioner. The course of the proceedings resulting in that order was as follows.

(2.) The petitioner brought a suit against the respondent for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of premises of which the respondent is a tenant. In answer, the respondent pleaded that he had paid part of the amount claimed, and propounded a receipt in support of that plea. The petitioner rejoined that the receipt was forged. Issues were framed on 11th April, 1977, and the case was then adjourned to 31st May, 1977 for recording evidence.

(3.) On 31st May, 1977 the petitioner was present in court along with two witnesses, who had been summoned. Their testimony was intended to disprove the payment pleaded by the respondent. The case was called at about 11.30 a.m. The petitioner appeared before the judge and said that his counsel was busy in another court and asked for time to call him. It appears that the judge laid the case aside for a short while, and then took it up again. No one was then present on behalf of the petitioner. The judge proceeded to record the statement of two witnesses called by the respondent. After their statements had been recorded, the petitioner returned to the court and requested the judge to wait a little longer as his counsel had not yet become free from the other court. However, the judge called upon the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses of the defendant whose statements had already been recorded, but the petitioner said he was unable to do so. The petitioner was then called upon to make his own statement, but he was unwilling to comply in the absence of his counsel. Thereafter, the judge recorded an order in which he narrated all that had happened, and adjourned the case to 3rd August, 1977 for recording the remaining evidence of the respondent. At about 1.20 p.m. counsel for the petitioner appeared before the judge and tried to explain why he was unable to appear earlier. He was told that an order had already been made in the case.