BALRAJ BEHL Vs. KANTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Ludhiana, dated 28th February, 1984, closing his evidence.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that on 28th February. 1984, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. Om Parkash Clerk of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana and Kamal Dev witnesses were present in the Court. The Case was fixed for the examination of the Local Commissioner and the official of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. The learned trial Court did not allow the petitioner to produce Kamal Dev who was present in the Court and closed his evidence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if a witness of a party is present on the date of hearing, he should be examined by the Court. In support of his contention he places reliance on Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others, 1983 AIR(SC) 925.