SAHIRUDDIN KHAN Vs. RAJKUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) By filing the present revision petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, three different orders passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia in connection with Money Suit No 44 / 2016 have been put to challenge.

(3.) The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent as plaintiff had instituted Money Suit No. 44/2016 in the court of Civil Judge, Tinsukia praying for a decree for recovery of a sum of Rs 7,27,443/- from the petitioner/ defendant together with future interest and cost. The petitioner had contested the suit by filing his written statement. After framing of issues, the respondent/ plaintiff had submitted his list of witnesses which included the name of Sri Om Prakash Shah as one of the witnesses. But when the said witness had refused to appear and adduce evidence without the summons from the court, the plaintiff had filed an application on 09.11.2017 praying for issuance of summons to the witness. The prayer for issuance of summons to the witness was allowed by the learned trial court on 09.11.2017 i.e. on the same day on which the application was filed. The order dated 09.11.2017 is under challenge in this proceeding.