LAWS(RAJ)-1977-1-31

LILADHAR Vs. SHAH NANDLAL MITALAL MARWADI

Decided On January 10, 1977
LILADHAR Appellant
V/S
Shah Nandlal Mitalal Marwadi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition by the defendants is directed against an order of the Additional District judge, Udaipur, dated January 17, 1975. The facts giving rise to this revision petition ma) briefly be -stated as follows.

(2.) THE plaintiff -non -petitioner filed a suit against the defendants ft r the recovery of Rs. 22.566/07 on the basis of pro -note dated October 30, 1969. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the court framed as many as 9 issues on July 25, 1974 and adjourned the case to September 13, 1974 for examination of the plaintiffs' witnesses. The parties were also directed to file list of witnesses within 15 days. The plaintiff filed list of witnesses within the time but the defendants failed to do so. They filed the list of witnesses on November 7, 1974, i.e. before the plaintiff closed his evidence. The learned Additional District Judge refused to examine the witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses filed by the defendants on the ground that the list of witnesses was filed beyond the prescribed time. It was prayed to the learned Additional District judge that the list of witnesses filed on November 7. 1974 may be treated as a list of witnesses filed for the sake of rebutting the plaintiff's evidence as the list of witnesses has been filed before closing of the evidence by the plaintiff. This oral prayer made by the learned Counsel for the defendants was also rejected. On the other hand, the learned Additional District Judge insisted upon the counsel for the defendants to move a regular application for treating the list of witnesses dated November 7, 1974, as list of witnesses to be examined in rebuttal. But no such written application was filed by the defendants. The learned Additional District Judge, in the circumstances, closed the defendant's evidence. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed on behalf of the defendants.

(3.) RULE 1 of Order 16 CPC, as amended by Rajasthan, runs as under: