LALIT MOHAN GURU Vs. LAXMINARAYAN GURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated March 8, 1995 this Court directed to issue notice on the question of admission. In response to the said notice plaintiff -opp. party No. 1 has appeared through Mr. S. N. Sinha, learned Advocate. In spite of service of notice opp. party No. 2 has not appeared. This revision is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

(2.) PRESENT Civil Revision is directed against an order dated January 20, 1996 passed by the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sambalpur rejecting an application filed by the present petitioners under Section 138 of the Evidence Act praying for re -examination of defendants' witness No. 7.

(3.) MISS . Panda, appearing on behalf of the petitioners has urged that statement of the witness during cross -examination that he and Prasant came from the house of Manbodh 'while the writing was going on' being vague and inconsistent with his statement in the examination -in -chief and also in his earlier statement during cross -examination that scribing and execution of the wills were over by 10 to 11 a. m., re -examination of the said witness is necessary to get an explanation what the witness meant by the words 'while writing was going on'. She has submitted that re -examination can be permitted to explain the discrepancy between the statements of the said witness in the examination -in -chief and those in cross -examination. Miss. Panda has relied upon the decisions reported in Vol. 40 (1974)CLT Notes 107 at page 79 (Mohammed Ayub v. Municipal Councillors, Cuttack Municipality and Ors.) : 1980 (1) ILR Cutt. page -1 (Collector, Cuttack and Ors. v. bankar Sahu and Ors.) and 1971 (3) SCC 406 (Chanan Singh v. State of Haryana) in support of her submission.