JHUMPA BEWA Vs. SAHADEB ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Kendrapara, refusing the petitioners (defendants 2 to 4) to adduce evidence in Title Suit No. 194 of 1978.

(2.) Opposite parties 2 to 6 (Plaintiffs) instituted the suit for setting aside the sale deed in respect of the suit land executed by petitioner No. 1 in favour of opposite party No. 1 (defendant No. 1) on the ground that the sale deed was obtained by the latter by fraud and misrepresentation without payment of consideration to the former, an illiterate and purdanashin lady. The petitioners, in their written statement, supported the case of opposite parties 2 to 6, which makes opposite parties 2 to 6 being plaintiffs and the petitioners being defendants sail in the same boat. Opposite parties 2 to 6 closed their evidence by examining witnesses on 24-7-1984. The defendants were to commence their evidence on 25-7-1984. On that day opposite party No. 1, as well as, the petitioners filed their list of witnesses and were present in court. Opposite party No. 1 commenced his evidence which was closed on 1-8-1984. On that day the petitioners filed a petition to allow them to examine their witnesses to which there was opposition by opposite party No. 1. The matter was heard by the learned Additional Munsif who by the impugned order held that the petitioners should have led evidence before commencement of evidence of opposite party No. 1, because, they supported the case of opposite parties 2 to 6. In case they were permitted to lead evidence after close of evidence of opposite party No. 1, the latter would be seriously prejudiced in his defence, because. whatever materials he had obtained in his support by cross-examining the witnesses of opposite parties 2 to 6 and by examining the own witnesses would be, destroyed.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged that the learned Additional Munsif should have called upon the petitioners to adduce evidence before he permitted opposite party No. 1 to lead his evidence. For the above reason it was not possible on the part of the petitioners to adduce evidence prior to the leading of evidence by opposite party No. 1.