ARUN Vs. SUSHILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. G.K. Sawayee, the learned Counsel for the applicants.

(2.) The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicants is that before the Court below proceeded with the enquiry as ordered by the order dated 27.4.1992, the Court below ought to have compelled attendance of plaintiff No.1 and interrogated her. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in Somnath v. Tipanna, 1973 MhLJ 910.

(3.) I have considered the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants and also perused the application filed by the applicants before the Trial Court for compelling the attendance of plaintiff No. 1 for interrogation and examination and also the judgment of this Court cited .