GURDIAL SINGH Vs. MALKIAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition arises out of an interim order dated February 10, 1988 closing the defendant's evidence.

(2.) Short relevant facts brought out by the counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that respondents filed a suit for possession and mesne profits of the land in dispute against the petitioner-defendant. When it was fixed for defendant's evidence, the same was not produced in spite of several opportunities having been granted, even on payment of costs.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact an error crept up as the petitioner-defendant also filed a suit for declaration which was dismissed for default and an application for restoration of the same was pending in which evidence of the petitioner, as well as his evidence, in the later suit was being recorded. It is contended that in the suit, the petitioner was the plaintiff and wanted to examine the same witness in the application for restoration as well as in the suit. The process fee etc. in fact was filed for summoning the witnesses in the proceedings for restoration of the suit, under the impression that if the witnesses are served and present in the Court, they shall be examined in the suit also, as the proceedings were continuing simultaneously on the same date before the same Court.