MOHINDER KAUK Vs. OM PIARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision petition. Defendant filed an application for summoning the plaintiff-respondent as her witness for confronting her with some documents alleged to have been executed and signed by her. Inspite of several opportunities, service on the plaintiff could not be affected. Defendant then moved an application for publication of summons in a newspaper asking the plaintiff to appear in the witness box This application was rejected by the impugned order of the Trial Court dated 11th June, 1990. Plaintiff had also appeared as her own witness but at that time the questions which are sought to be put by the defendant in cross-examination had not been put to her.

(2.) I have heard both the parties as length. So far as the question of re summoning Smt. Om Pyari is concerned that already stands granted by the Trial Court and inspite of several opportunities, the plaintiff could not be successfully served for appearing as a witness for the second time. The application for publication of the said notice summoning the plaintiff to appear as a witness, in my view, has been wrongly rejected At this stage instead of ordering publication of the notice summoning the plaintiff to appear as a witness I deem it appropriate to direct the plaintiff respondent through her counsel to appear as a witness. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 0 4. 1992. The plaintiff through her counsel is directed to appear in person on the said date and the Trial Court is directed to record her evidence on the said date or on any other date to be fixed by the Trial Court at its convenience. Revision Petition is allowed with do order as to costs.