S.N. BHARGAVA, J.—This is defendants second appeal against the judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar Camp, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by Munsif Magistrate, Behror.

2. Learned counsel for both the parties have made a request before me that this appeal may be disposed of at admission stage itself.

3. One of the points raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that defendants were not afforded ample opportunity to lead evidence and defendants witnesses were not examined as the list of witnesses was filed late.

4. The suit was filed on 6.10.1975; issues were framed on 14.3.1978 and when the plaintiffs were examining their witnesses, the defendants filed an application on 15.9.1979 alongwith list of witnesses which they wanted to examine. In the application, it was stated that the list could not be filed earlier as the defendant was ill. The paintiffs closed their evidence on 21.4.80 and thereafter, the case was fixed for defendants evidence. It was also ordered that if the defendant wanted to get the process issued, process fee should be filed within three days along with the witnesses expenses and the case was fixed for 6.5.8C. Lateron, on the same day i. e. on 21.4.80. it was further recorded in the order sheet that the plaintiffs had filed an application on 15.9.79 giving list of witnesses and the defendants wanted to file reply of the said application. Three days time was given to file the reply. The reply was not filed within three days and the case was again adjourned on 6.5.80 for arguments on the application filed by the defendants on 15.9.79. On the next date i.e. on 23.5.80, neither the defendants nor their counsel was present and therefore, ex-parte proceedings were taken and the application dated 15.9.79 was also dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. The exparte order was set aside and the case was fixed for recording evidence of the defendants on 21.10.190. On that day, witnesses Mangal, Bhanwar Singh, Kishori, Kashiram, and Birbal were present, but they were not examined on that day as the Advocates for both the parties wanted time. The witnesses were bound down to appear on the next date i.e. on 3.11.1980. On 3.11.1980, reply to the application dated 15 7.79 was filed. It was submitted that since the list of witnesses was filed beyond time, the application should be rejected as also that the application had already been rejected on 23.5.1980.

5. Learned trial court after hearing arguments of the parties, dismissed the application dated 15.9.79 by its order dated 3.2.81 on the ground that the defendants had not shown any sufficient cause for not filing the list of witnesses within time nor they had produced any evidence in support of their application and the witnesses of the defendants were not examined. Learned trial court ultimately vide its judgment dated 5.8.81 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for permanent injunction. On appeal by the defendants, the learned first appellate court (Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar Camp) dismissed the same. Hence, this second appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Bhanwar Singh V. Gir Raj Prasad (1), Satnam Iransport Company V. Prakash Mal Surana (2), Jagdish Prasad V. Civil Judge, Jaipur (3) and Mangeram V. Brij Mohan (4).

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment of the first appellate court and has stated that no revision petition was filed against the order dated 3.2.81 dismissing the application dated 15.9.79 and that since the defendants have not given any reasons nor had shown any sufficient cause for not filing the list of witnesses in time, this court should not interfere in second appeal.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter. I am really pained to observe that the trial court should have dismissed the application dated 15.9.79. It is t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document