RAM SAROOP RAM NATH Vs. SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN
LAWS(DLH)-1983-10-11
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 06,1983

RAM SARUP RAM NATH Appellant
VERSUS
SHIKHAR CHAND JAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagdish Chandra, J. - (1.)In this civil revision the plaintiff-petitioner assails the impugned order dated January 17, 1978 passed by Shri M.S Rohilla, Sub Judge, Delhi whereby the petitioner's prayer for the production of witnesses was disallowed and the application in that regard was dismissed with costs.
(2.)The petitioner had filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,543.18 for the price of goods alleged to have been purchased by the defendant-respondent. Issues were framed in the case by the learned trial court on May 5, 1977 and the case was adjourned to August 17, 1977 for the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The evidence was not recorded on that day and the case was again adjourned to September 29, 1977 on which day the statement of Kishan Chand, the partner of the plaintiff-petitioner, was recorded and the remaining case of the petitioner was closed as the list of witnesses filed by the petitioner had not been filed within the permitted period of 15 days from the striking of issues. The petitioner thereafter made an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to produce his evidence as additional evidence alleging that Kishan Chand. the suing partner of the petitioner-firm, had gone to Banaras in connection with business and remained there up-till May 30, 1977 and the list of witnesses was then filed on June 1, 1977. This application was resisted by the defen- dant-respondent.
(3.)The learned trial court did not believe as correct the averments made in the application and did not find itself induced to grant any further opportunity to the petitioner to adduce its remaining evidence. The learned trial court did not even invoke the provision contained in Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure in favour of the petitioner for allowing him the production of remaining evidence observing that the discretion under Sec. 148 of the Code of Civil.Procedure should be exercised judicially and not at random, nor in favour of a person who is guilty of gross negligence on his part in complying with the statutory provision of law.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.