SHRI RAM SARUP Vs. SHRI NAND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition for revision and is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Delhi, dated the 27th February, 1961, refusing to examine the witnesses sought to be produced by the Defendant in defence. The ground on which this refusal proceeds is that by an order dated the 17th October, 1960, his predecessor had refused to allow the Defendant to examine witnesses other than those who had been served for that date and were present in Court. The Defendant after the order of the 17th October, 1960, made two attempts by application to get a proper order passed in the case, but with no avail.

(2.) AFTER going through the record I find that the order of the 17th October, 1960, on which the order of the 27th February, 1961, is based is wholly without jurisdiction. The Court below should have realised that the rules of procedure are meant to further the ends of justice and not to throttle it. If the Court below had merely referred to Order 16, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a proviso added to it by the Punjab High Court, the mistake would not have occurred. It is significant that on the 17th October, 1960. the Plaintiff's evidence was still being examined and it is only after the Plaintiff's evidence was closed that the examination of the Defendant's evidence was to start. For that purpose, 27th February, 1961, was fixed as the date of hearing. On that date a list of witnesses was filed in the Court indicating the witnesses that were to be examined on that date. It may be mentioned that these witnesses had been summoned but in view of the order of the 17th October, 1960, these witnesses were not examined. It is against this order that the present petition for revision is directed.

(3.) AS there is no representation for the Respondent there will be no order as to costs.