KAPIL DEO DUBEY Vs. UPENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner submitted that gross error has been committed by the trial court in not allowing to examine the witnesses in the money suit filed by the original Plaintiff.

(2.) PETITIONER is an original Defendant.

(3.) IT further appears from the facts of the case that Money Suit No. 1 of 2000 was filed by the Respondent. Much time has been elapsed after filing of the Suit. Moreover, the present Petitioner, who is original Defendant, is also debarred from filing of the written statement. Several applications one by one, have been preferred, as narrated at page -3 of the impugned order, passed by the trial court and several times such type of applications have been dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, enough time was given to examine the witnesses by the original Defendant. Earlier orders, passed by the trial court have not been challenged in the higher forums. Thus, earlier orders, passed by the trial court ha s attained its finality and the matter has now been fixed for final hearing of the Suit of the year, 2000.