(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the Munsif Sojat, rejecting the petitioner's application for leading his evidence.
(2.) The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Bherji Mali and it is not disputed that the interest of the petitioner, who is a defendant in the suit, is identical to that of the plaintiff, who is her adoptive, mother, Smt. Lali wife of Bherji Mali. The trial court framed the issues in the suit, including one relating to the adoption of the petitioner, as his adoption was alleged by the plaintiff but was denied by the contesting defendant. The burden of some of the issues was placed on the contesting defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The plaintiff examined her evidence first. Then July 30, 1982 was fixed for examining the evidence of the contesting defendants. On that date, the contesting defendants led their evidence. Thereafter, on that very day, the petitioner filed an application stating that he could not file a list of his witnesses earlier, as he did not know what evidence would be led by the contesting defendants and it was only thereafter that he could decide as to which witnesses should be examined by him in his evidence. The petitioner thus prayed for an opportunity to lead his evidence. The trial court refused to allow the plaintiff the desired opportunity on the ground that an ex-parte order was passed against the defendant petitioner on April 4, 1979 which was still in force and that the petitioner did not file any list of his witnesses, although he has already been examined as a witness. It was observed by the trial court that none of his witnesses were present in the court and further he could not have been allowed any opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal to the evidence led by the contesting defendants.
(3.) In this revision petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges that the grounds given by the trial court for disallowing the petitioner to examine his evidence are erroneous and that the petitioner should be allowed an opportunity to produce his evidence. Although, an exparte order was passed against the petitioner on April 4, 1979, yet it could only restrain him from filing his written statement, for which the case was fixed on that date. The petitioner was thereafter allowed to participate in the proceedings and was also allowed to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the contesting defendants. It is urged that an opportunity could not have been refused to him to examine his witnesses, only on the basis of the ex-parte order passed on April 4, 1979.