UCHHABKANWAR Vs. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF RAMSWAROOP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) It is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 that the suit proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No. 3 - Ram Singh. Therefore, Ram Singh is not require to be served. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision is heard and decided on merit at admission stage.

(3.) The thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the subordinate Court has no jurisdiction to refuse to summon the attendance of the witness by his order dated 16-1-1995, inasmuch as, he has ample jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure not only to issue a non-bailable warrant of his arrest but also to attach and sell his property and could have impose a fine on him, not exceeding Rs.500.00. According to learned counsel for the revisionist it is not sufficient to hold that since there is no report about the service of non-bailable warrant upon the witness, therefore, the evidence of the witness has to be closed.