MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Merta dated January 4, 1990 by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner dated December 16, 1989 for recalling the plaintiff Pukh Raj to confront him with his earlier statement dated 21. 06. 80, given in another suit.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity in rejecting the said application as the plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukhraj clearly admitted in his earlier statement dated 21. 06. 1980 given in another suit 'pukhraj vs. Shakuntala Devi' that the defendant-petitioner Kana Ram was his tenant and not a sub-tenant. He further contended that it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice to confront the plaintiff Pukh Raj with his said statement dated 21. 06. 1980, the trial court has taken a very technical view of the matter and the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. He relied upon (1) Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner Pukh Raj that the defendant-petitioner previously moved a similar application and it was dismissed by the trial court by its order dated 1. 4. 89, it was not challenged before any higher court and as such the second application was barred under section 11, C. P. C. He further contended that the trial court has given good reasons for not recalling the plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukh Raj. He lastly contended that the defendant-petitioner was admittedly in pessession of the certified copy of the said previous statement dated 21. 6. 1980 of plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukh Raj when his statement was recorded on 24. 7. 1984 in this case. There is no substance in the revision petition. It appears that the defendant-petitioner has been under the impression that it was necessary under sec. 145, Evidence Act to confront the plaintiff-non-petitioner with his previous statement dated 21. 6. 1980. It has been held in Bharatsingh vs. Bhagirath, (2) that provisions of section 145, Evidence Act are not applicable to the parties and they are applicable to the witnesses only. As such it is not necessary to recall the plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukhraj to confront him with his said admission contained in his previous statement dated 21. 6. 1980. It is the admitted case of the parties that a certified copy of the statement of the plaintiff Pukh Raj dated 21. 6. 1980 given in another suit 'pukhraj vs. Shakuntala Devi has been filed by the defendant-petitioner in this case. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner that it has not been taken on record by the trial court as required under O. 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. This position is not disputed by the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner. The defendant-petitioner may move an application before the trial court under O. 13 Rule 2, C. P. C. for taking it on record. The trial court will decide it after hearing the parties in accordance with law. If the application is allowed, the certified copy will be exhibited being admissible under section 65 (c), Evidence Act. The suit will be decided expeditiously by the trial court as it is pending since the year 1983- With these observations, the revisions petition is disposed of. . ;