GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. THAKAR HASMUKHHAI KHELSHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr.N.K. Majmudar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Rule is served to the otherside and the respondent no.1-orig. Defendant has opted to appear in person. On earlier occasion, the orig.defendant has filed reply affidavit in vernacular language (Gujarati) on 29th April, 2005 and the same is on record at pg.36.

(2.) I have considered the contents of the reply affidavit, mainly the points of resistance. The petitioner is the orig.plaintiff and I am told by Mr.Majmudar that the orig. plaintiff has examined the witnesses in support of the Suit and a detailed cross-examination of the witnesses examined has been made by the otherside in the trial Court. When the orig. defendant was asked to produce his evidence he applied that a witness from the office of the orig.plaintiff-Electricity Board may be called as his witness. I am told that the officers aware about the facts and details as to the dispute between the parties have been examined and they are available to the Court, if required, be recalled.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioner-Board is that the orig.defendant applied for witness summons against the Legal Adviser of the petitioner-Board. Mr.Majmudar has pointed out that the trial Court has grossly erred in exercising its jurisdiction to issue witness summons calling the Legal Adviser of the petitioner-Board as a witness for the orig.defendant. It is submitted that : the application preferred by the defendant for issuance of summons in question is vague in nature.