BAURIBANDHU MOHANTY Vs. SURESH CHANDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two Civil Revisions, the petitioners challenged the orders of the Munsif, Jagatsinghpur dated 19-8-89 and dated 9-8-89 respectively rejecting the applications of the plaintiffs to recall P.W. 7 and D.W. 5 for further examination in relation to some admission, made in the compromise petition filed on 5-3-82 but was not acted upon. The Court has rejected the application stating that such applications could not be allowed in view of Section 23 of the Evidence Act (for short 'the Act').

(2.) . The short facts leading to the present Civil Revisions are as follows : The present petitioners along with Opposite Party No. 3 had filed the suit bearing No. 64 of 1981 before the learned Munsif, Jagatsinghpur against the present Opposite Parties 1 and 2 with a prayer to declare that they had acquired their right of easement in respect of the Schedule-C land of the plaint schedule and to restrain the Opposite Parties by way of injunction not to interfere with their peaceful enjoyment of the said pathway. 2A. While the suit was in progress, with the intervention of gentlemen of the locality, a joint compromise petition was filed by both the parties on 5-3-82 in the suit which was signed by their respective lawyers. Since no sketch map was annexed with the compromise petition, the trial court by the order dated 6-3-82 asked the parties to rectify the defect by 15-3-82. As no such sketch map was filed in compliance with the order dated 6-3-82, the compromise petition was not acted upon.

(3.) The present petitioner No. 1 was examined himself as P.W. 7. After his evidence was closed, a petition was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs for recalling P.W. 7 under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') read with Section 151 of the Code. The impugned order dated 19-8-89 shows that a petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code was filed by the plaintiffs to recall P.W. 7 for the purpose of exhibiting the joint compromise petition which was rejected by the trial court. Against the said order dated 19-8-89, the plaintiffs have preferred this Civil Revision No. 889 of 1989.