MILAP CHANDRA, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Merta dated January 4, 1990 by which he has rejected the application of the defendant-petitioner dated December 16, 1989 for recalling the plaintiff Pukh Raj to confront him with his earlier statement dated 21.06.80, given in another suit.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity in rejecting the said application as the plaintiff-non-petitioner Pukhraj clearly admitted in his earlier statement dated 21.06.1980 given in another suit Pukhraj vs. Shakuntala Devi that the defendant-petitioner Kana Ram was his tenant and not a sub-tenant. He further contended that it is expedient and necessary in the interest of justice to confront the plaintiff Pukh Raj with his said statement dated 21.06.1980, the trial court has taken a very technical view of the matter and the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice. He relied upon (1) Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj.

3. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff non-petitioner Pukh Raj that the defendant-petitioner previously mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document