SHARAM SINGH Vs. GURJIT SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by filing the present revision petition has challenged the order dated June 1, 1992 vide which his prayer to lead evidence in rebuttal was declined and also order dated August 4, 1992 dismissing his application under order 18, Rule 17 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as apparent from the reading of the paper book are that respondents No. I and 2 purchased some land from respondent No. 3. Petitioner, challenged the said sale by filing a suit for possession by way of pre -emption. He virtually led no evidence and only brought on record Ex. P1 a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1983 -84 and a copy of the sale deed mark A and another sale deed date July 20, 1977 Mark B and closed his evidence in affirmative on December 23, 1991. Thereafter evidence was led by the respondents/defendants and they brought on record Ex.D.l, the original/impugned sale deed and also a copy of the mutation Ex. D2 and closed their evidence on May 14, 1992. Counsel for the respondents/defendants also made a statement giving up issues No. 2,3 and 6. It further transpires that when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence on May 28, 1992, the petitioner tried to appear as a witness in re - buttal evidence. Then an objection was raised by the defendants that he could not do so since no evidence had been adduced by the defendants to prove issues No. 2, 3 and 6, so the petitioner is not entitled to lead any rebuttal evidence. This objection was upheld by the trial Court and the request was declined vide order dated June I, 1992. The petitioner never challenged the said order and took a chance by filing application under Order 18 Rule 17 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure with the prayer that under some misunderstanding he could not appear as his own witness and also could not bring on record certain documents. It was stated that since the counsel for the defendants had made a statement giving up issues No. 2, 3 and 6, the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable tight of examining himself as his own witness and also to place on record certain documents. This application was contested by the defendants and after hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated August 4, 1992. Hence this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently contended that the present revision petition against two orders of different dates is not competent and liable to be dismissed on this score. It was also argued that no opportunity be given to the petitioner to bring on record any rebuttal evidence since no evidence has been led by the respondents on issues No. 2,3 and 6. He further contended that the petitioner is not even entitled to lead any additional evidence since the case is not covered under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 -A of the Code of Civil Procedure.