M.C. JAIN, J.—This revision raises on important question of law as to the interpretation of Order 16, Rule 1 and 1A, C.P.C. It arises under the following circumstances:

2. The plaintiff Prakashmal Surana instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment and also for the recovery of house-tax, electricity charges etc., against the defendant Satnam Transport Company, through the Managing Partner Smt. Satnam Malik, Delhi Gate, Udaipur and Beharilal, Manager, Satnam Transport Co. The suit for eviction was based on personal necessity of the disputed premises. The defendant resisted the suit and submitted the written statement on 23.3.1979. Necessary issues arising from the pleadings, were framed. The plaintiff closed his evidence reserving right to adduce evidence in rebuttal on 10.9.1979 and the case was posted for defendants evidence on 27.10.1979. On that very day, that is, on 10.9.1979, the plaintiff submitted an application that the defendant has not file, any list of witnesses within fifteen days after framing of the issues under Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C and has been negligent and only the defendant can be exmined in evidence. It was prayed that the case may be posted after a week for the statement of the defendant, so that the case can be disposed of within the month of September, 1979 On 27.10.1979 on behalf of the defendant an application for adjournment, was moved on the ground that the defendants counsel Shri J.P. Joshi had to proceed to Delhi, as arguments in Urban Ceiling Case had begun in the Supreme Court. It was also stated in the application that the defendants witnesses Shankarsingh Rathore (Sampatsingh appears to be mistake, as in earlier name mentioned is Shankarsingh) and Ramchandra Sharma, are present. Thereafter, another application was moved on behalf of the defendant at about 3.30, p.m., on that very day, wherein it was stated that the case is fixed for defendants evidence, but the defendant Mrs. Satnam Malik could not come from Udaipur on account of ill health. The statements of two witnesses Shankarsingh Rathore, Branch Manager, and Ramchandra Sharma. an employee of Satnam Transport Company, can be recorded first and an order to that effect may be passed and the statements of the witnesses, may be recorded. A reply to this application, was filed by the plaintiff, in which an objection was raised that the provision of Order 16, Rule 1, C.P.C, is mandatory and as no list of witnesses has been filed by the defendant within fifteen days, the defendant has no right to examine the two witnesses. In case the court allows production of the witnesses in evidence, the provisions contained in Order 16 Rule 1, Sub-rules (1) and (3) and Order 16, Rule 1A, will be rendered nugatory. The defendant, thus, cannot examine any witness from her side. The learned Munsif City, Jodhpur, after hearing the arguments, allowed the objection of the plaintiff and rejected the defendants application for recording the statements of the two witnesses. The learned Munsif ordered that only the statement of the defendant will be recorded. Dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Munsif, the defendant has preferred this revision petition.

3. I have heard Shri J. P. Joshi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner, and Shri Parmatma Sharan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner, at length.

4. The defendant-petitioner has moved an application under Order 16, Rule 1, sub-rule (3) read with section 151, C.P.C., wherein it is stated that the counsel for the defendant-petitioner used to get instructions in the suit from Shri Shankarsingh Rathore, Manager of the Jodhpur Branch of Satnam Transport Company. Therefore, the defendants counsel, after framing of the issues, contacted Shri Shankarsingh Rathore and asked him to meet before 5th April, 1979. The defendants counsel again tried to contact him on phone on 5.4.1979, but he was informed that Shri Shankarsingh Rathore had proceeded to Udaipur, from where he is supposed to go to Ahm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document