HEMANT GUPTA,J - (1.) THE challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 17.12.2002 whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order dated 11.10.2006 whereby application filed by the petitioner for permission to lead evidence was declined.
(2.) THE plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 41,420/- on the basis of pronote for Rs. 24,000/-. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 17.12.2002 after two witnesses of the plaintiff were examined. None for the defendant appeared to cross-examine the said witnesses and, thus, NIL cross-examination was recorded. Thereafter, an application was filed by the plaintiff for permitting him to appear as his own witness. The said application was declined on 11.10.2006 on the ground that since evidence of the plaintiff has been closed by an order earlier, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to appear as his own witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the plaintiff has examined two witnesses, the plaintiff cannot be said negligent in any way in leading his evidence. However, in any case, it is stated that the plaintiff is ready to compensate the defendant for the delay in appearing as his own witness. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has taken more than 4 years to decide the application filed by the plaintiff for permission to record his statement.
(3.) KEEPING in view the fact that an application for permission to examine himself as his own witness was filed by the plaintiff on 20.12.2002 i.e. three days after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order, I deem it appropriate to permit the plaintiff to examine himself as his own witness. The said course will advance the cause of justice. The defendant can very well be compensated with costs.;