NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. BRAHMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 26. 4. 2000 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Ajmer (West) in civil suit No. 326/82 by which order the trial court rejected the application of plaintiff filed under Order 16 Rule 5, 7 & 7a CPC.

(2.) THE plaintiff was allowed an amendment in the plaint by adding para No. 6a and on 28. 9. 99 the issues No. 4b was framed, as stated by petitioner, to the effect that whether the disputed property is a commercial establishment and whether during life time of respondent her heirs were not doing the business in the premises in question. An application was moved by plaintiff to summon certain witnesses, which was opposed on the ground that at the time of death of respondent the plaintiff was still leading evidence and had closed it subsequently. It was further argued that the petitioner had not included the said witnesses in the list of witnesses, submitted by him, therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot be allowed to summon the witnesses. It was observed by the trial court that at the time of making the application for amendment and framing of the issue, no reason has been shown as to why the name of witnesses, now being summoned, was not mentioned in the application. THErefore, the petitioner was not allowed to summon the witnesses.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order immediately. On issuance of notice the counsel for the respondent has appeared. After hearing the parties, it shall be appropriate in the instant case that the trial court be directed to render court assistance to summon the official witnesses with the record without any further delay. THE respondents shall also be allowed to produce evidence in rebuttal, if so desired. THE counsel for petitioner submits that if the court assistance is given to summon the witnesses, he would serve the witnesses on his own responsibility.