CHANDER SINGH Vs. CHOTTULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Munsif No. 2, Jodhpur dated 9/11/1993 by which he has closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and has fixed the case for final arguments. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) The plaintiff-non-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed premises against the defendant petitioner. On 15/02/1992, the plaintiff closed his evidence and 9/04/1992 was fixed for the evidence of the defendant. Thereafter, several dates were fixed for the same purpose. On 9/11/1993, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) tended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the same day (9-11-1993) an application was moved before the trial court that the defendant's witness Kailash Chandra could not come as the plaintiff had threatened him with dire consequences if he appeared before the trial court to give his statement and has prayed that an opportunity be given for examining him on commission but the learned trial court did not care to pass any order on it. He further contended that the defendant again moved an application on 6/12/1993 for opening his evidence and giving an opportunity to produce his remaining witnesses and also to grant time to file a revision petition in the High Court and to bring stay order therefrom but the learned trial court simply gave time to file revision petition and did not give an opportunity to produce evidence. He also contended that the trial court acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in closing the defendant's evidence. He lastly contended that if the defendant is not given an opportunity to produce this remaining witnesses, he would suffer an irreparable injury.