G.C.GARG, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial Court dated May 22, 1993. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner form obstructing him from operating the tubewell. After both the parties had led evidence and only the statement of the defendant remained to be recorded, counsel for the defendant made a statement that the tubewell has ceased to function and as such the suit of the plaintiff has become infructuous and, therefore, in the circumstances, closed the evidence of the defendant. Thereafter, an application was moved under Order 18, Rule 17-a of the Code of Civil Procedure that a formal statement of the defendant is to be recorded, and, therefore, permission be granted for the purpose. This prayer was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court vide impugned order dismissed the application. This is how the present revision petition came to be filed at the instance of the defendant. At the motion stage, learned counsel for the petitioner cited Devi Sahai v. Municipal Committee, Narnaul through Administrator, Narnaul, (1988-2) 94 P. L. R. 435.
(2.) THE respondent has not put in appearance inspite of service. In the circumstances, I proceed to dispose of this revision petition in his absence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the counsel made a statement on the erroneous assumption that the water of the tubewell had dried up and the suit has become infructuous. In fact, a dispute about the tubewell or in other words about the material of the tubewell remained between the parties till partition and it is a question yet to be decided by the Court whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction in that behalf or not. Therefore, there arose occasion to move the present application for additional evidence: The learned counsel in support of his submissions relied upon Devi Sahai's case (supra) to contend that the rules of procedure are meant for administering substantial justice and not to cause hindrance therein. According to the learned counsel, petitioner neither stood to gain in any way nor there was any intention on his part to linger on the dispute between the parties. Counsel gave a statement in the situation aforesaid without realising that dispute about the property of the tubewell still remained between the parties, Learned counsel also submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the defendant is permitted to appear as his own witness. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel. The record of the case clearly goes to show that the counsel made the statement in the manner indicated above. Since the dispute about the tubewell still remains, it will be in the interest of justice to permit the petitioner to appear as his own witness subject to payment of costs. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner to appear as his own witness subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs. Petitioner through his counsel has been directed to appear before the trial Court on March 16, 1994 for further proceedings. .;