- (1.) The challenge in the present revision by the plaintiff is to the orders passed by learned trial Court on 21.11.2003 whereby the statements of Sarv Shri Joga Singh, Gurpritam Singh and M.L. Dhawan, witnesses of the petitioner, were not recorded purportedly in terms of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 4806 of 2003 dated 16.10.2003. Earlier on 9.5.2003, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed for the failure of the petitioner to conclude its entire evidence. On the said date, one witness Munsha Singh was present in the Court but since he has not produced the summoned record, the evidence was closed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in C.R. No. 3086 of 2003 and this Court has passed an order on 8.7.2003 to the effect that if the plaintiff produces Munsha Singh alongwith the record, on the date already fixed, the trial Court will take the evidence of the said witness. However, on the date fixed, the witness could not be examined as the copy of the order was not available with the petitioner. The learned trial Court passed an order on 25.7.2003, closing the evidence of the petitioner.
(2.) The said order became subject matter of challenge before this Court in C.R. No. 4806 of 2003, wherein the petitioner was granted another opportunity to produce Munsha Singh alongwith the record subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-. On 21.11.2003, the cost of Rs.5,000/- was paid before the trial Court. The statement of Shri Munsha Singh was also recorded. But an application filed by the petitioner to examine Sarv Shri Joga Singh, Gurpritam Singh and M.L. Dhawan, as witnesses of the plaintiff was declined for the reason that the High Court has permitted to record the statement of Shri Munsha Singh alone. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the witnesses of the petitioner were present in the Court on the said date.;