DEVINDER SINGH Vs. BIMLA BHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT herein has filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioner herein from a house situated at Shastri Nagar, Jammu and for recovery of arrears of rent which is pending disposal in the court of Addl. District Judge, Jammu. Evidence of the respondent -plaintiff has concluded and now petitioner -defendant has to lead evidence. Petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court under Order 18 Rule 3 -A for allowing him to make statement after recording of statements of his witnesses. Learned Addl. District Judge after obtaining objections from the other side did not find any merit in the application and rejected the same vide order passed on 5.4.1990. Aggrieved by that order petitioner has come up in revision before this court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Johl learned counsel appearing for petitioner has argued that the petitioner -defendant has given valid reasons for his deferring/statement till statements of his other witnesses have been recorded and the trial court without considering the same has wrongly rejected the application. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 3 -A C.P.C. are clear in nature and no valid ground has been shown by the petitioner for his appearing as witness at a later stage.

(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons I find no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Learned counsel for the parties shall appear before the trial Court on June 26, 1990.