BAJRANG RAM Vs. MOTARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated May 25, 1978 of the learned Munsif, Churu passed in civil original suit No. 1 of 1977.

(2.) THE plaintiff-non-petitioners No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit against the defendant-petitioner and defendant-non-petitioners No. 3 and 4 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 4,100/- in the Court of Munsif Churu. on Jan. 3,1977. Separate written statements were filed on behalf of the defendant-petitioner and defendant-non-petitioner No, 3. Issues were framed on January 4, 1978. THE plaintiffs were to lead evidence first on February 20, 1978. It may be mentioned here that February 20, 1978 was declared Holiday on account of 'baravafat' and, therefore, the case was taken up on February 21, 1978. On that day, the statements of Bhera Ram (PW1) and Hanumana Ram (PW2) were recorded and the counsel for the plaintiffs wanted to examine the plaintiffs on the next date. THE court ordered that if the plaintiffs wanted to summon remaining witnesses, they may file PF and summonses within a week. THE case was adjourned to March 23, 1978 for the plaintiffs' evidence. On March 23. 1978, plaintiffs alongwith witness Kaluram (defendant No. 3) were present but the counsel for the plaintiffs stated before the court that these witnesses would be examined on the next date. THE counsel for the defendants had no objection and. therefore, the case was adjourned to April 13, 1978 for the plaintiffs' evidence. On April 13, 1978, the plaintiffs were present and no other witness was present. On that day, it was stated that the plaintiffs besides themselves only wanted to produce the hand writing expert. On May 25, 1978, the court ordered for the summoning of the hand writing expert and directed that the plaintiffs shall deposit Rs. 300/- on May 27, 1978 as the fee of the hand writing expert. On that day, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the defendants that on February 21, 1978 no permission was obtained for the examination of the plaintiffs subsequently as required by Order XVIII r. 3a C. P. C. THE Court, however, ordered that on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs, permission for examining the plaintiffs is granted. Aggrieved by the order dated May 25, 1978, the defendant-petitioner has filed this revision petition.

(3.) IN Niranjan Lal vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (6), a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court while considering Jagan Nath Nayak's case (1) held as under : "with utmost respect to the learned Judge, I might observe that he has taken a rather narrow view of the provisions of a procedural statute which is meant to subserve the interest of justice. It is in the public interest that litigants should be allowed to have full say when they represent their respective cases before a Court of law. Merely because a party does seek the permission of the Court to appear as a witness at an earlier stage does not and should not debar a Court from considering his request favourably if he makes out a proper case for being granted the permission to appear as his own witness at a later stage. While doing so the Court should pay due regard to the nature of the controversy, the conduct of the parties, possible harm to his opponent if permission is granted to a party and last of all whether the aggrieved party can be adequately compensated with costs or not. "