YASHPAL SAWHNEY Vs. GANDOTRA TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of this revision petition an order passed by Munsiff, Jammu on 4-11-1993 has been called in question. The impugned order disposed of an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on 14-9-1993. The application made a prayer for direction to the defendant-respondents to produce their witnesses at their own because while furnishing a list of witnesses on 18-12-1991 defendants had given a long list of 59 witnesses, without specifying the purpose for which these witnesses were required to be examined. The order under revision has dismissed that application and held that while furnishing the list due compliance of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C. has been made. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come up in revision before this Court.

(2.) The suit is for eviction of a shop situate at Pacca Danga Jammu on the ground of personal necessity. I have gone through the long list of witnesses referred to above. By way of preamble defendant-respondent in para 2 of the application/list submit that he wants to produce these witnesses for purposes of proving the fact that the plaintiff is not the owner/landlord. On the other hand if father of the plaintiff who is the owner/landlord of the shop in question. It is also asserted in the preamble that the proposed witnesses would establish the fact that the requirement of the defendant was more pressing than that of the plaintiff. The third limb of the submission made in the preamble is that by producing these witnesses bona fide requirement of the defendant shall be established.

(3.) At a prima facie glance, the factum of bona fide requirement can be well determined while balancing the comparative requirement of the parties. So in short, on the own showing of the defendant, only two questions are to be answered and facts arising thereof to be proved. -