- (1.) ORDER :- The revision is directed against an order of the District Judge, Bhilwara dated April 15, 1980, by which the plaintiff (revision-petitioner) was not permitted to file a document along with the re-joinder.
(2.) Very few facts need narration for the disposal of this revision. The plaintiff which is a private limited company, instituted a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 34,492.38 p. against the defendants. According to the case set-up in the plaint, the plaintiff, in pursuance to the written agreements Ex. 1, Ex. 2 and Ex. 3, despatched were cone cotton yarn to the defendants and sent the bills and Hundies through the bank. The defendants took delivery of part of the goods but failed to take delivery of the bulk of the goods. The undelivered goods were received back by the plaintiff, which it sold in the open market at the prevailing rate. In doing so, the plaintiff incurred a loss of Rs. 34,492.38 p. The suit was contested by the defendants. Issues were raised and evidence of the parties was recorded. The case was thereafter posted for final arguments. The defendants thereafter sought permission to introduce certain amendments in their written statement. The permission was granted to the defendants to amend the written statement and the plaintiff was allowed to file a re-joinder in respect of the amendments sought by the defendants. The plaintiff filed re-joinder and along with it, filed a copy of the notice on November 26, 1979. The amendment allowed to the defendants was to the effect that the goods could be sold by the plaintiff only after a notice to the defendants was served. The plaintiff, in its rejoinder, stated that notice was, in fact, given to the defendants. The District Judge did not permit the plaintiff to file a copy of that notice. Aggrieved against the said order, the plaintiff has come-up in revision.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;