HIRA NAND Vs. SAVITA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The trial Court by the impugned order declined the request of the defendant to examine Narinder Kumar Saxena as witness who was present in Court on the ground that the defendant had on the previous date stated that he would examine only three witnesses and more than that number had already been examined. This is wholly an illegal order. As ruled by the Supreme Court in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan and others, 1983 AIR(SC) 925, the Court cannot refuse to examine a witness who is present in the Court on the ground that the name of the witness has not earlier been included in the list. In the present case the Court has declined to examine the witness because of the previous statement of the defendant that he would only examine three witnesses. On the analogy of the said decision of the Supreme Court the previous statement of the defendant could not give rise to an estoppel so as to deny him the right to examine a witness who was present in the Court. The trial Court thus acted illegally in exercise of its jurisdiction and the impugned order is accordingly reversed. However, so far as the production of any document is concerned, the defendant has to move a proper application for seeking permission in that regard. The parties, through their counsel, have been directed to appear in the trial Court on April 2, 1987.