PARKASH CHAND Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-PETITIONERS filed a suit for declaration challenging the promotion of defendant respondents No. 5 to 40 working in State Bank of Patiala. Official defendants were arrayed as defendants No. 1 to 4. The suit was filed in the year 1986. Plaintiff-petitioners closed their evidence on 29. 11. 1988 and the respondents closed their evidence on 12. 1. 1990. Plaintiff-petitiones filed an application for amendment of the plaint which was allowed on 5. 10. 1990. With the amendment of the plaint, 11 additional issues were framed by the trial Court on 13. 11. 1990. Plaintiffs filed the list of witnesses, process fee and the diet money for summoning the witnesses. Two of the witnesses were official witnesses including Shri T. Pandurang Rao, who was the Managing Director of State Bank of Patiala at the relevant time. This witness had admitted that the office of respondent No. 1and was transferred to Calcutta and is presently working as Chairman of Industrial Reconstruction bank w. e. f. 4. 2. 1992. Application was filed under Order 16 Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code that he be exempted from personal appearance. This application was pending and thus witness was not examined. Only one other official witness, who had been summoned was examined.

(2.) ON December 7, 1992, counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners made a statement that evidence of the plaintiff be closed. On 10. 2. 1992 an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioners that the statement made by his counsel on 7. 12. 1992 was under misapprehension of facts and the order passed by the court ordering closure of the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioners dated 7. 12. 1992 be recalled. This application has been disposed of by the impugned order. Trial Court has not adverted to the facts which have been enumerated in this order. This application was rejected with the following observations made by the trial Court:

(3.) APPLICATION filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for recalling order dated 7. 12. 1992 is allowed. Plaintiffs-petitioners shall be (given sufficient opportunity to lead their evidence and T. Panduranga Rao, official witness be summoned through the process of the Court to complete his attendance and appear as witness. It is, however, made clear that if this witness makes an application that he be examined on commission then the Court shall pass appropriate orders keeping in view the circumstances prevailing at that stage.