AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.
Mr. Chhabra states that provision of JUDGMENT 18 Rule 3A CPC were not complied with. The two witnesses who were defendants could not examine themselves though their evidence commenced in November 1994. On several dates, they examined their other witnesses. On few dates, Members of the Bar were on strike and last date was wrongly conveyed to them. When they appeared on the following day, they found that their right to adduce evidence was closed by the trial court.
Petitioners are defendants in the case. It is a suit for partition their statements are definitely material to prove their pleas. Plaintiff respondent''s counsel pointed out that earlier this suit proceeded ex parte and thereafter when they appeared, exparte order was set aside. According to him, this is the conduct of these defendantpetitioners. They only want to delay the proceedings.
Considering the contentions of both the parties in my considered view in the interests of justice, revision is allowed and impugned order is set aside. Defendantpetitioners are hereby directed to examine themselves in the lower court on 15.5.1996. If they remain absent on this date, their evidence will automatically stand closed. This opportunity is given to these defendant petitioners on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/ to be paid to the plaintiff respondent in advance.
JUDGMENT be conveyed to the lower court.