Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsels for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order dt. 21.05.2007 whereby the application of the petitioner moved under Rules 1, 2, 3 and 17 read with Section 151 for granting him opportunity to adduce evidence has been rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that application has been rejected on the ground that Counsel for the plaintiff -petitioner on 06.05.2004 made a statement that he does not want to produce any evidence. It has also been argued that this statement was bona fidely made by his Counsel though the petitioner had given no such instruction. The Counsel had in -fact given an affidavit in which he has submitted that since the another suit in which the defendant of the present case is the plaintiff was also fixed together with the present suit on certain dates, he made an erroneous statement. Due to mistake of the Counsel the plaintiff -petitioner's evidence has been closed in the present matter. It has further been submitted that resultant situation was creation of a bonafide mistake on the part of his Counsel and the petitioner should not be made to suffer on that count.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent is strongly opposed, the writ petition and argued that the two suits were fixed together only on two dates and on other dates they were fixed on different dates. It was further contended that the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings and the application for producing the evidence is not a bonafide one.;