D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS order will govern both the aforesaid revision petitions.
(2.) AS notice was issued to the non -petitioner, Mr. Bapna appeared on behalf of the defendant non -petitioner. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties at considerable length. In the suit filed by the applicant Kodumal issues were framed by the trial court of July 1, 1975 and the case was fixed for September 12, 1975, for recording the evidence of the plaintiff and the parties were allowed to file the lists of their witnesses within the statutory period of 30 days. It is common ground that note of the parties filed a list of its witnesses within the cried of thirty days. On September 12, 1976, the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff prayed for an adjournment, which was allowed on payment of Rs. 10/ - as costs and then the suit was fixed for October 3, 1975 for recording the evidence of the plaintiff. Before the aforesaid date, the plaint ff submitted an application on September 12, 1975 explaining the reasons en account of which he was unable to file a list of his witnesses within the period allowed by law and praying that the witnesses whose names were included ID THE list annexed to that application may be allowed to be examined in support of the plaintiff's case. The plaintiff also filed an affidavit alongwith his application dated September 15, 1975. The defendant did not file any reply to this application. The trial court, by its order dated October 3, 1975, rejected the application of the plaintiff and refused to examine the witnesses mentioned by the plaintiff in the list submitted by him alone with his application dated September 15, 1975 on the ground that the said application was not supported by a medical certificate. The trial court by the said order also proceeded to close the evidence of the plaintiff. By the subsequent order dated October 16, 1975, the trial court rejected the plaintiffs subsequent -application filed on October 10, 1975, although the plaintiff also filed medical certificates in respect of his illness along with his later application. It is against these orders that the two revision applications have been preferred by the plaintiff.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the plaintiff applicant contended that the plaint ff bad explained in his affidavit dated September 15, 1975 the reasons en account of which he was prevented from submitting the list of his witnesses within the statutory period of thirty days but the said affidavit of the plaintiff was not at alt considered by the trial court. On the other band, the learned Counsel for the defendant opposite party submitted that the trial court was justified in refusing to allow the plaintiff to examine his witnesses, as the plaint ff failed to submit a list of his witnesses within the period of thirty days and further that the discretionary order passed by the trial court should not be interfered with by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.;