B.K.Rathi, J. - (1.) This is a revision under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order, dated 30/1/2001 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Misc. Case No. 155 of 1988.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the revision are as follows: Suit No. 441 of 1982 was filed by respondent no. 1 through Mutawalli Narendra Kumar alias Narendra Kumar Trivedi alias Shiv Om against 28 persons. The relief sought in the suit is for declaration regarding his right of the Mutawalli of the Trust property. The relief of injunction was also sought. Some of the defendants filed written statements denying that Sri Narendra Kumar Trivedi is the Mutwalli. During the pendency of the Suit a Misc. Case No. 155 of 1988 under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act was also filed by Sri Narendra Kumar Trivedi in the court of the District Judge, Moradabad. It was alleged that Sri Narendra Kumar Trivedi was adopted by late Pt. Hari Kishan, and he requested for issue probate in his favour for the properties mentioned in the petition on the basis of the Will dated 2/6/1972 of Pt. Hari Kishan. Both these probate application and the Suit were for the same properties, therefore, both the suits were consolidated and Misc. Case No. 155 of 1988 was made the leading case. Against that order of consolidation of the suits, writ petition No. 6147 of 1991 was filed before this Court, which was decided on 31/7/1998. The order of the consolidation of the suits was upheld but the order was modified only to the extent that .suit No. 441 of 1982 shall remain the leading case. After the decisiion of the writ petition the matter was taken up by the Additional District Judge, Moradabad on 29/10/1999. He ordered that several dates have been fixed for evidence of the defendants, but they are not producing any evidence, therefore, the opportunity of the defendants, the present revisionists, to produce the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments on 5/11/1999. The aforesaid order is annexure 7 to the petition. After this order, the revisionists, who were defendants in the suit, moved an application for permission to produce evidence on 25/11/2000 alleging that the dates were not informed by the counsel and, therefore, the evidence could not be produced. It was further pleaded that the defendants will suffer irrepairable loss if they are not permitted to produce the evidence. The said application has-been rejected by the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Moradabad by the impugned order, dated 30/1/2001. Against that order, the present revision has been filed.
(3.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, Senior Advocate for the revisionists and Sri H.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.;