MEHBOOB HASAN Vs. MEHMOOD HASAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 18.3.2005 vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by court order. A reading of the order would show that the learned trial Court found that on the earlier date of hearing it was ordered by the Court that the plaintiff would not be permitted to examine any other witness on 18.3.2005 except PW-1 Shri Mehboob Hasan. It is further recorded that the plaintiff has availed of sufficient opportunities for leading his evidence. Issues were framed on 12.05.2004 and since then no list of witnesses was filed by the plaintiff except an application filed by his counsel on that very date i.e. 18.3.2005 for summoning witnesses.

(2.) MR . Palli, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner contends that a reading of the order dated 14.1.2005 the date immediately preceding the date on which the petitioner's evidence was closed would show that no statement was made by his counsel that he would not examine any witness other than the plaintiff Mehboob Hasan The order made on 14.1.2005 reads as under :

(3.) AS against this learned counsel for the respondents submits that the counsel for the petitioner had himself stated that he would not examine any witness except PW-1 i.e. the plaintiff. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now wriggle out of the statement made by his counsel. It is further contended by the learned counsel that according to Order 16 Rule 1 a list of witnesses and summons is to be given within 15 days of the framing of the issues. In the present case issues were framed on 12.3.2004 and the list of witnesses had only been giver an 12.5.2004. He contends that in view of the provisions of Order 16 Rule 1 even that list of witnesses could not be entertained and, therefore, evidence of the plaintiff has rightly been closed. He further states that the petitioner in fact did not even make an application for summoning witnesses within 15 days of the framing of the issues.