KESHAR SINGH Vs. ABBAS ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5-1-1993 by which the petitioner's evidence was closed.

(2.) By order dated 18-11-1989 the summoning of witnesses of defendants was closed and the defendant was required to bring his own witnesses. On 13-10-1992 defence witness Khem Raj was examined on behalf of the petitioner-defendant No. 5. One, Deepchand Mathur was present as witness of defendant No. 3. The trial Court refused to record his statement on the ground that the name of Deepchand was not in the list of witnesses and that on behalf of defendant No. 3, the witnesses of plaintiff have not been cross-examined. Therefore, he can only produce rebuttal evidence and cannot produce his own evidence and the matter was adjourned on 5-1-1993 for bringing any of the witness whose names have been mentioned in the list. On 5-1-1993, no witness of defendant No. 5 was present. However, he moved an application on 5-1-1993 itself that in the list of witnesses, name of Balkrishna as Administrator of Fakri Housing Co-operative Society was given. However, since Balkrishan has retired from service he requested the present Administrator to be present in Court along with the record of the Society. The said Administrator has refused to come to the Court at the request of the defendant No. 5 but has said that he will be present in Court if he is summoned by the Court. On the said application, an endorsement has been made on the very day that order has been passed in the order-sheet. The order dated 5-1-1993 which is under challenge makes no reference to the application and the said application has not been disposed off. The impugned order merely says that the petitioner was given opportunity to produce his own witnesses on 5-1-1993 and since no witnesses is present, no further opportunity can be given to the petitioner.

(3.) It is apparent that while an application was moved disclosing the ground for not bringing the Witness Balkrishan and seeking permission to summon the present Administrator of the Society as witness. The trial Court has totally ignored that application though endorsed on the application that it has been decided with the orders passed in the order-sheets and has closed the evidence of the defendant No. 5.