BADRILAL Vs. CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Defendant has directed this Revision against the order dated 8.12.99 passed by 11th Civil Judge Class II Indore in Civil Suit No. 10A/99 thereby rejecting the prayer of the applicant to examine him and the witnesses who were present in the Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the case was fixed on 3.12.99 for the evidence of the applicant (defendant No. 1) but on that date an adjournment was prayed on behalf of the applicant on the ground that his counsel is busy in recording evidence in some criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Court rejected the prayer and closed evidence of the applicant. On 8.12.99 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner stating therein that his three witnesses are present in the Court and their statements may be recorded and the order closing evidence be recalled. The trial Court rejected the prayer by the impugned order. Hence this revision.

(3.) ON perusal, it emerged that after closure of the evidence on 3.12.99, an application on 8.12.99 was filed on behalf of the petitioner praying that the order closing evidence be recalled and the statements of his witnesses present in the Court be recorded. When the witnesses were present in the Court and the petitioner was not asking for any further adjournment for recording his evidence the Court should have granted opportunity to the petitioner in the interest of the justice. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for recording his statements and the statements of the present witnesses on the date of filling of the application.