Ram Sarup and others vs Manohar and others

Bal Raj Tuli, J.—The petitioners are vendee-defendants in a suit for pre-emption, their witnesses, although served, were not present on August 29, 1973, the date fixed for their evidence. It appears from the order of that date that warrants for their appearance had already been issued but those warrants had not been received back. The Court directed fresh warrants to be issued on the previous process fee, if it had already been deposited and the ease was adjourned JO September 14, 1973, subject to payment of Rs. 25/- as costs. That order was not challenged in revision. The present petition has been filed against the order dated September 14, 1973, which reads as under:--

Present: Counsel for the parties. Costs paid. No witness present. Warrants not issued as P.F. for warrants was lass.

Warrants (bailable in the sum of Rs. 500/- each) be issued on payment of balance P.F. for 1st October. 1973. Last adjournment is being allowed subject to further costs of Rs. 25/-. Arguments on application also on that date.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the witness to whom bailable warrants were got issued are under the influence of the plaintiff-preemptors and the petitioners could not procure their attendance. That is why they prayed to the Court that warrants of arrest should be issued against there. Objection is raised to the costs of Rs. 25/- for adjournment. I do not find that the order awarding costs was in any way unjustified. An unnecessary adjournment had been occasioned because the petitioners did not deposit the proper process-Fee for the issuances of the warrants of arrest against she witnesses. The grievance is, however, made that in these circumstances, the learned trial Court should not have ordered that it was the last adjournment which was being granted. The petitioners are only responsible for getting the warrants served on the witnesses, but they cannot compel them to cams to the Court. It is quite correct that the petitioners will be responsible for getting the warrants of arrest served on the witnesses, and if, in spite of service, they do not appear, the Court shall issue non-bailable warrants, if so desired by the petitioners. Since further proceedings were stayed by the Motion Bench while admitting the revision petition, I direct the learned trial Court to issue the bailable warrants against the witnesses in accordance with law. If la spite of service they do not appear, non-bailable warrants shall be issued if so prayed by the petitioners. The revision petition is accordingly disposes of. No order as to costs.