M L MEHTA Vs. GANESH NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question of law is involved in this revision, by the defendant, against an order of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, dated January 2, 1979, and January 27, 1979, passed in Civil Suit No. 69 of 1976.

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, the facts necessary for the decision of this revision are that the plaintiff-respondents Nos. 1 to 9 filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner and a number of other defendants. On August 22, 1972, the plaintiffs called the petitioner M. L. Mehta to appear as a witness on their behalf, though he was one of the defendants. From the statement of the defendant-petitioner recorded on that day it appears that some objection was raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to record the statement of the other party, but the Court did not allow that objection on the ground that the witness had been administered oath and he has deposed a few lines in the examination-in-chief. From the statement of the petitioner it is not clear as to whether the counsel for other defendants had raised this objection or whether the counsel representing the petitioner had raised this objection. The case then lingered on for the evidence of the plaintiffs and their witnesses and thereafter the evidence on behalf of some of the defendants was also examined From a perusal of the order-sheets it appears that on October 12, 1978, when the defendant-petitioner wanted to appear as a witness, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he had no objection in the statement of the petitioner being recorded. However, it seems that the Court it-self wanted to decide the question whether the petitioner, who had already appeared as a witness, should be allowed or not to appear again. The case then lingered on for one reason or the other and ultimately this question was considered by the Court on January 2, 1979, The learned trial Court took the view that as the defendant-petitioner has already appeared as a witness, though on behalf of the plaintiffs, he had no right to appear again, even in support of his own case. Subsequently on January 27, 1979, the trial Court closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner as regards other witnesses also to be produced by him.