RAKESH MEHTA Vs. AMOLAK SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is against the order passed by the trial court accepting the plea of the counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that PW3 would require to be cross -examined and he will have an opportunity to examine one more witness of bank official, who he wanted to summon. The Court has allowed for this permission and has observed that evidence will be closed after cross -examination of PW3 and the witness who sought to be summoned. The plaintiff is aggrieved in revision by the fact that the evidence has been ordered to be closed. I cannot countenance a plea that the court was not justified in closing the evidence since the impugned order is based on the statement made by the counsel. Counsel now sought to contend that the statement referred to by the counsel for the plaintiff before the court below was erroneously made by an associate of the counsel for the plaintiff. If an order records a concession through the statement made by a counsel and it is sought to be contended that such statement was wrongly made and wrongly understood, the remedy of the party or counsel shall be only to apply to the very same court for review after setting out all the relevant facts and giving out the details of the alleged wrong statement or concession said to have been made. It cannot be re -opened at higher forum in revision petition. The court must only take what is stated by the order as regard the events that took place before the judge as concluded by the observations made in the order itself. The revision is not maintainable and hence dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the same very court for review of the order, if he wants to resile from any statement attributed to his counsel while passing the order.