Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 5th December, 2009, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bandikui declined the prayer of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to summon Dr. Sohan Lal and Vinay Pathak.
(2.) HEARD . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner canvassed that so far as the prescriptions are concerned, he has already filed in the court, but the appearance of the Doctors is essential to prove both these documents as the Petitioner remained admitted in the hospital for a period of seven days and was in the treatment of Sohan Lal from time to time. Learned Counsel further canvassed that he wanted to evince that on account of his cardiac ailment, he was unable to sit on the shop regularly. Hence, the impugned order be set -aside and the learned trial court may be directed to summon both these Doctors for their appearance in evidence.
(3.) HAVING reflected over the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is noticed that the Petitioner filed the written statement way back in the year 2002 and had pleaded the defence that on account of cardiac ailment, he was not regularly sitting on the shop with effect from September, 2001 to May, 2002. He, albeit, filed the prescription slips and the certificate issued by the Doctor, but did not enter the name of Doctors in the list of witnesses. Learned trial court is found to have dismissed the prayer of the Petitioner on the ground that neither the Petitioner has included the names of both these Doctors in the list of witnesses nor there is any necessity to procure their appearance for evidence. However, if the Petitioner needed to prove the documents by these two Doctors, he could produce them at his own level. The observations made by the learned trial court are found to be just and proper and suffer from no infirmity. The order impugned by the Petitioner is also not found to be contrary to the material, hence the same does not warrant any intervention.;