CHANDRADEO SINGH Vs. ARUNA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revisions are at the instance of defendant tenant in a suit for eviction instituted in the year 1974.

(2.) The disputed premises is a cinema-hall. In the year 1979, hearing of the suit was taken up and the plaintiff's witnesses were examined. P. W. 10 was examined on 4-6-1985. Thereafter a few witnesses of the plaintiff were examined, and the defendant-petitioner was asked to examine his witnesses from 19th September, 1990. The defendant filed a list of witnesses as required under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the time of settlement of the issues and/or within fifteen days from the date of settlement of the issues. I am told that those witnesses have already been examined on behalf of the defendant-petitioner.

(3.) The defendat-petitioner moved the Court below for issue of summonses to some new fourteen witnesses, but the court refused to issue summons at that late stage, as against which the petitioner moved this Court in Civil Revision No. 1669 of 1990. By order dated 24-1-1991, this Court refused to interfere with the order passed by the Court below refusing to issue fresh summons to the new set of witnesses at that late stage beyond the one contemplated under Order XVI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This court, however, observed while disposing of the said Civil Revision that if the witnesses of the defendant-petitioner are available in court while the suit is being taken up day to day, the court below might pass appropriate order.