YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. PAVAN KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 5.11.2009 by 1st Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Satna in Civil Suit No.4-A/09 by which an application filed YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. PAVAN KUMAR JAIN by the petitioners under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. By the aforesaid application, petitioners prayed that the statement of plaintiff be not read in evidence.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn attention of the Court to rule 147(4) of M.P. Civil Court Rules and submitted that without certificate as provided in the rule, statement could not be read in evidence. Apart from this, witness left the Court without seeking permission of the Court so he ought to have been prosecuted by the trial Court as provided in order 16 rule 16 CPC.

(3.) To appreciate the aforesaid contention, we perused the impugned order. The facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the respondent Pavan Kumar Jain for eviction of the petitioners. Respondent Pavan Kumar appeared in the witness box. When his statement was going on, counsel of the petitioners asked a question whether he can depose after taking oath of his son in respect of certain facts. The witness annoyed with the question and by stating that he did not want to prosecute the case, left the Court. Because of this, his statement could not be completed. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application under section 151 CPC for rejecting the statement of Pavan Kumar from the deposition which has been dealt with by the trial Court by the impugned order. Before the trial Court, plaintiff submitted reply to this application and stated that the question which was put by the counsel for the petitioners to take oath of son and to depose in the Court irritated and excited the witness resulting increase of high blood pressure and to save his life, he left the Court. He immediately consulted the doctor where he was treated. The explanation with medical certificate submitted by the witness was found reasonable by the trial Court and relying on the explanation, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners.