ABDUL AZIZ PARRAY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOBODY has appeared for respondents on previous date also. Accordingly, they are proceeded against in ex -parte and the matter taken up for hearing/disposal.

(2.) IMPUGNED in this revision petition are orders purporting to have been passed by 1st. Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar on 30th of April and 30th of June 2005 in the Civil Original Suit captioned Abdul Aziz Parray v. State of Ors. wherein he first accepted respondents plea for arguing petitioners pauperism and later allowed them to lead evidence against the same.

(3.) GROUNDS pleaded are that after institution of the suit, trial court declared petitioner as an indigent person after a full dressed enquiry and recorded as order to that effect which was not challenged by defendants and as such the issue could not be re -opened on their plea as raised in the written statement otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of Order 33 Rule 9 and as such the impugned orders were bad. During course of his brief submissions, petitioners counsel has, besides reiterating the contents of revision petition, also stated that the suit was already at an advanced stage wherein he had adduced his part of evidence also, but due to impugned orders, the suit was likely to suffer delay. Nobody is present on behalf of respondent/State to argue the matter.