(1.) This Civil Re vision is directed against the Order dated 7th August, 2000 by the Learned Civil Judge, East, Gangtok in Civil Suit No 19 of 2000 Petitioners were defendant Nos 1 and 2, respodent Nos 1 and 2 were proforma defendant Nos 3 and 4 and respondent No 3 was the plaintiff in the Civil Suit.
(2.) The Civil Suit from which the Civil Revision has arisen was filed by the plaintiff for a decree of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property in suit detailed in Schedule II of the plaint, the property being his self-acquired property and also for a direction to defendant Nos 1 and 2 to vacate a portion of the same, as detailed in the plaint It is admitted before us that respondent Nos 3 and 4. though had been served with summonses, did not participate in the proceedings till 2nd August, 2000 It is fairly conceded that they were watching the proceedings They neither filed any written statement nor chose to cross-examine any of the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and defendant Nos 1 and 2 Evidence of the plaintiff was closed prior to 2nd August, 2000 and evidence of defendant Nos 1 and 2 was closed on 2nd August, 2000 On the closure of the evidence, the case was posted for arguments Thereafter, an oral submission was made on behalf of defendant Nos 3 and 4 that they wished to render their evidence The order dated 2nd August, 2000 reads as under -
(3.) From the above narration, it is clear that defendant Nos 3 and 4 filed the application after the evidence had been closed by the plaintiff and also defendant Nos 1 and 2 and the case had been posted for arguments If defendant No 1 was leading wrong evidence on facts or beyond pleadings, defendant Nos 3 and 4 could cross-examine defendant No 1 and his witness. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 did not choose to do so It is true that defendant Nos 3 and 4 are entitled to participate in the remaining proceedings Remaining proceedings now are the final arguments. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court allowed defendant Nos 3 and 4 the fresh opportunity to produce evidence subject to fresh opportunity being given to defendant No 1 to produce evidence in rebuttal, if any We are of the opinion that since defendant Nos 3 and 4 did not choose to file written statement and made the application after the evidence had been closed and the case had been posted for arguments, defendant Nos 3 and 4 could not be allowed to produce evidence.