LOLA PEREIRA Vs. VIOLET PARANJOTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one of those extraordinary matters where interference at the hands of the High Court is absolutely essential in order to correct a perverse and capricious refusal to exercise discretion by the Co-operative Court.

(2.) A dispute is pending before the Co-operative Court. It is not necessary to state the rival contentions on the factual aspect of the dispute. The present petitioner is the disputant. Respondent No. 2 is the Society and respondent No. 3 is the contesting party in the said dispute. The petitioner closed her evidence on 3-10-1979. Thereafter respondent No. 3 started leading evidence. She examined herself. It appears that her examination and cross- examination went on for many days. On 22-7-1983 certain previous statements made by her before a Police Officer were put in the cross-examination. She denied having made such statement. The disputant has, after issuing a witness summons to the Police Officer L. R. Rane, brought before the Court the said alleged statement of respondent No. 3 and it is with the help of that statement that respondent No. 3 was cross-examined The cross-examination of respondent No. 3 was over by 29th August, 1983. She was, however, to lead the evidence of some other witnesses. In the meantime, on 12th September, 1983, the petitioner made an application to the Co-operative Court requesting for the issue of witness summons to the Police Officer Rane with a view to prove the above- mentioned previous statement of respondent No. 3. That application was not decided on that date. In the meantime, the rest of the evidence of respondent No. 3 was recorded and her evidence was closed on 28-10-1983.

(3.) The above mentioned application dated 12-9-1983 was rejected by the Co-operative Court on 16-11-1983, vide page 10 of the complication. The petitioner filed a revision application, being Revision Application No. 6 of 1984, against this order. That revision was dismissed on 2-2-1984. It was heard ex parts. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application, being Application No. 14 of 1984, for restoring the said revision. This application was rejected or dismissed on 9th March, 1984. The petitioner has come before this Court for challenging the order rejecting the application dated 12-9-1983.