MAHAVEER PRASAD Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Nawa dated 4 -2 -1987. I have also perused the affidavits filed by Shri Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate.

(2.) THE revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned Munsif Magistrate, Nawa dated 4 -2 -1987, by which the plaintiff's evidence was closed. A bare perusal of the order would reveal that this order has been passed by the learned Munsif Magistrate on account of unduer haste. The plaintiff was in the witness box on 4 -2 -1987 and wanted to prove a receipt alleged to have been obtained from the Municipal Board, Nawa in respect of the purchase of the plot in dispute. However, that receipt was not at that time available with the learned Counsel as the same had been handed over to another counsel in connection with another suit. Therefore, the statement of the plaintiff could not be completed and according to the order -sheet the learned Counsel for the plaintiff closed the evidence. The learned Munsif has observed that in that circumstances, he had no option but to close the evidence. When the original receipt the basis of suit was not available at the time, it cannot be envisaged the learned Counsel would have left the plaintiff's statement incomplete and closed his evidence. What appears to have happened is that the learned Counsel must have prayed for an adjournement, which was not acceded to by the learned Munsif and in the huff of the moment, the learned Counsel may have stated that if adjournment was not granted, his evidence may be closed and the learned Munsif Magistrate appears to have taken it literally. It also appears that as soon as the evidence of the plaintiff was thus closed, an application was filed by the learned Counsel for re opening the evidence and one more application was filed on 5 -2 -1987 showing the intention of the plaintiff to get the case transferred. These subsequent steps taken by the learned Counsel clearly justify the inference drawn above. The plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad and Shri Hanuman Singh, Advocate have filed their affidavits in this respect, which has not been controverted on behalf of the opposite party. In these circumstances, I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Munsif acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in closing the plaintiff's evidence. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained.