- (1.) THE contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially Parhlad son of Mange Ram petitioner -plaintiff (for brevity the plaintiff ), has instituted the civil suit for a decree of declaration with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, against Umed Singh son of Hardwari and Dhanpati wife of Bani Singh respondents -defendants (for short the defendants ). The defendants contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(2.) HAVING framed the issues, arising out of the pleadings of the parties, the case was slated for evidence of the plaintiff. The trial Court closed his evidence, vide impugned order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P -5). The application for summoning the witnesses were dismissed as well, by the trial Court, by way of separate impugned order dated 26.02.2014 (Annexure P -6).
(3.) AGGRIEVED thereby, the petitioner -plaintiff has preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset, in exercise of power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I hereby exempt the issuance of notice to the respondents -defendants, in order to save them from the expenditure of counsel fees, litigation expenses in this Court and the delay in disposal of the suit, particularly when they can well be compensated with adequate costs in this context. Be that as it may, however, in case, they are aggrieved by the order, in any manner, they would be at liberty to file a petition to recall this order without accepting the costs.;