MOHANLAL Vs. INDERMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Mohanlal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur, dismissing the suit brought by the appellant,

(2.) THE suit was filed as far back as 1941. After it has been pending for about six years in the trial Court it was dismissed for want of evidence and that was because the plaintiff appellant Mohanlal did not examine himself and the Court had to close down the evidence of the plaintiff. It is admitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant that if the plaintiff is not examined, the other evidence on the record is utterly insufficient to prove the case for the plaintiff. Any how, after the first dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff came in appeal to the High Court of the former State of Marwar. On 3-7-1947 there was a remand by the High Court for examining the plaintiff and certain other witnesses.

(3.) WE must say with all respects that if the above case lays down that a Court is bound to record the evidence of a certain party if the witnesses are present in Court after it has definitely ordered the evidence of that party to be closed simply because the case has been postponed to a later date for arguments or judgment, we differ from the view taken. Taking this view would mean that a party can always set at nought the order closing the evidence if it can manage to produce himself or his witnesses on the next date which is likely to be fixed for arguments or judgment. It is in very rare cases that the court after closing the evidence hears arguments or delivers judgment on the same day. Generally, on the request of parties, arguments are heard on the next day or after a few days and the court also takes a few days to deliver the judgment. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that if during this period a party can produce the witnesses whose evidence has been refused by bringing them in court, the order of the court is 'ipso facto' cancelled by this action of the party. WE are unable to accept this argument and he has not been able to produce any case in support except that of --'monilal Bandopadhya v. Khiroda Dasi (A)'. WE have already said that of the two Judges, one was very doubtful of the view that the learned Chief Justice took in that case. He agreed with the order because he thought that the order of the Munsiff of the 30th December was wrong and it was in the interest of justice to remand the case.