KODUMAL Vs. RAJASTHAN SMALL INDUSTIRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will govern both the aforesaid revision petitions.

(2.) AS notice was issued to the non -petitioner, Mr. Bapna appeared on behalf of the defendant non -petitioner. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at considerable length.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff applicant contended that the plaint ff bad explained in his affidavit dated September 15, 1975 the reasons en account of which he was prevented from submitting the list of his witnesses within the statutory period of thirty days but the said affidavit of the plaintiff was not at alt considered by the trial court. On the other band, the learned Counsel for the defendant opposite party submitted that the trial court was justified in refusing to allow the plaintiff to examine his witnesses, as the plaint ff failed to submit a list of his witnesses within the period of thirty days and further that the discretionary order passed by the trial court should not be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.