JOGINDER SINGH Vs. NARANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that one more opportunity be granted to them in the interest of justice. He further submitted that, in fact, diet money and process fee had been paid for effecting service upon Niranjan Singh s/o Jagar Singh as the petitioners intended to examine this witness. This witness did not come present and Court instead of issuing bailable/non-bailable warrants has chosen to close the evidence of the plaintiffs.

(2.) Keeping in view the facts as noticed above, I feel it just and appropriate if one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners to examine Niranjan Singh s/o Jagar Singh on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. I accordingly accept the revision petition set aside the order dated 17.5.1993 and direct the trial court to afford one more opportunity to the plaintiffs/petitioners to examine Niranjan Singh s/o Jagar Singh. The revision petition is disposed of.