VASUDEO Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for eviction from rented premises, an application was filed on 25/8/2004 by the defendant to permit him to summon certain witnesses in evidence. On 31/8/2004, when the application aforesaid was fixed for hearing, the defendant instead of pressing it produced Shri Vijay Kumar (D.W. 7) as witness and his statements were recorded. Two other defence witnesses viz. Rajkumar and Ashok were also present in Court on 31/8/2004 but their statements could not be recorded due to paucity of time.

(2.) The statements of Shri Rajkumar (D.W. 18) were recorded by the Court on 21/9/2004. On 31/10/2004 an application was preferred by the defendant under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC seeking amendment in written statement. The arguments on the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC were heard by the Court on 13/12/2004 and the same stood accepted by an order dated 17/2/2005. After acceptance of the application referred to above statements of Shri Vijay Kumar (D.W. 7) were recorded on 5/3/2005 and he was cross-examined on 15/3/2005. On 26/5/2005 counsel for the defendant was not present and, therefore, the matter was adjourned and was fixed on 6/7/2005 for further proceedings. By the order dated 26-5-2005 the trial Court while granting adjournment observed for expeditious disposal of the suit in view of the order dated 29-4-2004 passed by the Rajasthan High Court. The order dated 26-5-2005 is worth to be quoted :- (Vernacular matter omitted... .Ed.)

(3.) On 6/7/2005 D.W. 7 Vijay Kumar was cross-examined and on 13/7/2005 Shri Ashok Kumar Jain and Sushil Kumar were cross-examined by counsel for the plaintiff. An another defence witness Shri Manakchand was cross-examined on 14/7/ 2005 and thereafter evidence of the defendant was closed by the Court.