- (1.) HEARD Shri R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Siddhartha, learned counsel for the respondent.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners -defendants seek to challenge the order dated 31.03.2014 by which a witness has been summoned by the trial court along with documents as also the order dated 29.04.2014 by which the application for recall of the order dated 31.3.2014 filed by the petitioners/defendants has been rejected.
(3.) A loan agreement is said to have been entered into between the petitioners -defendants and the respondent bank. As the loan was not refunded, the respondent -bank filed a suit, bearing O.S. No.327 of 1989 for recovery of Rs.25, 265.87 plus interest at the rate of 17% per annum and for sale of hypothecated goods for realisation of the aforesaid loan. The suit was decided exparte on 31.8.1991. The petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the exparte decree which was allowed on 23.3.2013. On 7.5.2013 the petitioners filed written statement in the said suit, inter alia, stating that the petitioner no.1 was minor at the time of the alleged execution of the loan agreement and that he had never approached the respondent bank for sanction of the loan etc. Issues were framed on 9.5.2013 and a list of witnesses was filed. The petitioners -defendants filed a copy of birth certificate dated 27.6.1972 issued by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr. On an application of the petitioners -defendants dated 1.3.2014, additional issue pertaining to the defendant being a minor on the date of the agreement was framed on 6.3.2014. On 19.3.2014 the list of witnesses filed by the petitioners -defendants was directed to be provided to the respondent -plaintiff to lead evidence. An application was filed on 31.3.2014 by the respondent/plaintiff for summoning the concerned clerk of the Nagar Palika Parishad, Bulandshahr along with the birth register of 1972 pertaining to the date 27.6.1972 for evidence in rebuttal, whereupon the court concerned summoned the aforesaid witness. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application for recall, inter alia, stating that the order has been passed in violation of the Order XVI Rules 2, 3 and 4 C.P.C.;