KAN MAL Vs. KEDAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East), Bhilwara dated 26/11/1990 by which he has closed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) 26/11/1990 was fixed for the plaintiff's evidence. On this day, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal PW1 was recorded before lunch. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1, Shri Laxmilal Kothari Advocate, and the learned counsel for the defendant No.2, Shri Chandra Singh Bolia Advocate, did not appear in the Court for cross-examining the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1 till 4.30 P.M. and the learned Munsiff closed his statement by his order under challenge.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the counsel for the defendant-petitioners went to the trial Court in the early hours on 26/11/1990 to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal at that time the trial court ordered that the case would be taken up after lunch break for cross-examination; when the counsel for the defendant went to trial Court to participate in the proceedings, the trial Court was busy in recording the statements of the witnesses in a criminal case, after doing works in other Courts the counsel again went to the trial Court to cross examine the plaintiff and there he came to know that the statement of the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1 has been closed without cross-examination. He further contended that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to close the statement of Kedarmal PW-1 particularly when the counsel for the defendant appeared before the Court many times on that day, the trial court should not have passed such an order before closing hours of the day, the counsel for the defendants submitted an application the same day before the trial court along with the affidavits of Shri Laxmilal Advocate and Shri Chandra Singh Bolia Advocate and the trial Court dismissed it the same day without assigning sufficient reasons. He also contended that on that date the case was adjourned to 11-2-91 for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses of the plaintiff and as such closure of the plaintiff's cross-examination was meaningless, the said affidavits have not been properly recorded, note given below the statement of Kedarmal PW-1 that the defendant's counsel do not want to cross-examine is wholly wrong and it simply shows that the trial Court is highly prejudiced with the defendants. He lastly contended that the suit is for the ejectment of the defendants and they would be greatly prejudiced if they do not get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal PW-1.