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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document