Ram Kishan vs The State of Himachal Pradehs etc.

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a Plaintiff''s revision petition against an order dated April 18, 1973, made by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, refusing permission to the Plaintiff to examine certain witnesses and declining to order the production of documents.

The Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the recovery of Rs. 4,995 by the State from him. This amount was alleged to be due on account of arrears of lease money under a ferry grant, and the amount was sought to be recovered from the Plaintiff as arrears of land revenue. It appears that on December 18, 1972 the Plaintiff closed his evidence. The Defendant produced no evidence. When the case was taken up for arguments the Plaintiff made an application for examination of certain witnesses. It seems that the Plaintiff had not filed the original ferry grant made in his favour and that a copy alone was filed. The Plaintiff became aware of this omission when the case was coming on for arguments. The original ferry grant had been filed in a writ petition pending in the High Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied for summoning of the Superintendent of the High Court with the file of the relevant writ petition. He also wanted to have two other witnesses summoned, the Superintendent of the Deputy Commissioner''s Office, Bilaspur and Shri Karam Singh, ex-Finance Minister and Chairman of the Territorial Council. Thereafter the Plaintiff made a second application, in which he prayed for the production of a document. This document is a complaint filed by the Plaintiff in respect of the unauthorised exercise of ferry right by another to his detriment. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge has, by the impugned order, rejected both the applications. They have been rejected on the ground that the existence of the ferry grant and of the complaint were known to the Plaintiff all along, and that having regard to the stage at which the suit had reached it would not be right to allow the application. Now, before disposing of the applications the trial Court was bound to consider to what relative degree the parties to the suit would be prejudiced if the applications were allowed or dismissed. It is not disputed on behalf of the Defendants before me that if the ferry grant is not produced and proved in the suit the probability is that the suit will fail. Nothing has been shown to indicate that if the applications of the Plaintiff were allowed the Defendants would suffer serious prejudice and that any injury suffered by them could not be compensated in costs. It seems to me that by rejecting the applications on the ground that they were filed at a late stage the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has over-simplified the matter and has not applied his mind to all the relevant considerations arising before him. It is evident that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, has, by any erroneous approach to the case before him, declined to exercise jurisdiction which was vested in him.

The revision petition is allowed. The order dated April 18, 1973 passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Bilaspur, is set aside. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge will now consider both the applications. It will be for him to apply his judicial discretion and consider what order should be made on the said applications. In the circumstances there is no order as to costs.