HARI RAM Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants application in revision against the order of the City Judge (Sub -Judge) Jammu dated 22 -11 -63 whereby the evidence of the defendent has been closed.

(2.) IT appears that the defendant had summoned witnesses. The trial courts order of 12 -10 -63 mentions the name of three witnesses, Rama, Ram Saran and Paras Pam. About Rama it is stated that this witness was absent despite his having received expenses, and he should be summoned through warrant in the amount of Rs. 200. Ram Saran and Paras Ram were not served as they were not available on their given addresses. It was ordered that they should be summoned and the defendant should spot out these witnesses. The case was adjourned to 22 -11 -63. On that day day the summons of Paras Ram was received back with the endorsement that he was not available. The procees with respect to the other witnesses was not received. As the defendant failed to spot out the witnesses and was acting negligently his evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 4 -12 -63. This order, which is under revision, has been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently.

(3.) THE order seems not to be maintainable for the following reasons: -