JAI BHAGWAN Vs. LAJWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of Sub-Judge, 3rd Class, Kaithal, dated February 20, 1978, whereby he ordered two defence witnesses to be recalled under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) In the application filed for resummoning these witnesses the only ground made was that some contradiction existed in the statements of Suresh Kumar D.W. and Yash Pal P.W.3 and with respect to the other defendant, that he was studying in college at a different place in October, 1972. None of these averments justified recalling of either of the two witnesses. The learned Sub-Judge also stated nothing in his order as to why it was necessary to recall the said witnesses except saying that some ambiguities have come on the file which observation is as vague as the averments made in the application. The learned counsel relying on The Managing Director (MIG) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad and another v. Ajit Prasad Tarway, Manager (Purchase and Stores) Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Balanagar, Hyderabad, 1973 AIR(SC) 76, urged that the High Court could not interfere with the discretionary order even if the same is right or wrong, or in accordance with law or not. However, it was further observed in this decision by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the High Court should not interfere unless the trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is well established that when an order is passed in violation of the procedural law, it amounts to exercise of the jurisdiction illegally. As there was absolutely no basis for passing the impugned order under Order 18, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court below acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order.

(3.) Consequently, this petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order set aside. The parties, through their counsel have been directed to appear in the trial Court on September 12, 1978.