AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Newaskar, J.—Plaintiff Akbarali and his son (Sic)ddin filed a suit against two Defendants, who (Sic) opponents in the present case, for recovering (Sic)them Rs. 5000/- as damages. As the claim(Sic) contested by the Defendants the trial proceed(Sic) issues were framed and the Plaintiffs were dir(Sic) to lead their evidence. On 28th August 1952 Plaintiffs had to examine one witness Ahmad son of Hiftullabhai.
On that day before the witness was exam Plaintiffs put in an application which is at (Sic)199 of the record, stating there in that (Sic) was likely to be hostile to them and that it (Sic) be embarrassing to them if this witness was(Sic) any special consideration either by providing (Sic)on the dias or in any other manner. The (Sic) cation was rejected by the learned Civil on the ground that the witness was a local (Sic)of the Bohra community and their religious and that there was no objection to show some grace. A seat was provided for the(Sic) on the dias whereupon the Plaintiffs again (Sic)mitted an application for adjournment(Sic)ground that they want to approach the Court in revision. The learned Civil Jud(Sic) jected this prayer also. appears that the counsel for the Plaintiffs the Court that in case his application (Sic)ournment was refused he would not exa(Sic) the witness. Aggrieved, by this order the(Sic) have filed this revision application.
Mr. Karanjkar, the learned Counsel for the (Sic)ner criticised the action of the Civil Judge severely. He submitted that giving any spe(Sic)treatment to the witness under the circum(Sic)mentioned by him in his application had (Sic)assed his client. He submitted that the (Sic)had to treat all the witnesses alike and action based on the so-called status of a (Sic)was unjust and unfair. He referred to an (Sic)decision reported in - ''In re In Re: Ram Chand, , in support of his (Sic)ition. I agree with the contention of the(Sic) counsel that a discrimination based on the(Sic) difference in status is most undesirable. Bhalerao, the learned Counsel for the oppo(Sic) did not say any thing in opposition to this of view.
Mr. Karanjkar further submitted that the (Sic) of this witness which was closed by the (Sic) court should be re-opened in view of the cir(Sic) mentioned above. No formal order closing (Sic) of this witness was brought to my (Sic) and I am unable to help the Plaintiffs. They (Sic)so advised, approach the trial Court and(Sic)Court may be able to give them the necessary (sic)
(sic) With these remarks the revision application (sic)missed. Parties shall bear their own costs in revision.