Honble MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsiff (East), Bhilwara dated November 26, 1990 by which he has closed the cross-examination of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus:

2. November 26, 1990 was fixed for the plaintiffs evidence. On this day, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 was recorded before lunch. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1, Shri Laxmilal Kothari, Advocate and the learned counsel for the defendant No. 2. Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate did not appear in the Court for cross-examining he plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 till 4.30 P.M. and the learned Munsiff closed his statement by his order under challenge.

3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that the counsel for the defendant-petitioners went to the trial court in the early hours on November 26, 1990 to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal, at that time the trial court ordered that the case would be taken up after lunch break for cross-examination, when the counsel for the defendant went to trial court to participate in the proceedings, the trial court was busy in recording the statements of the witnesses in a criminal case, after doing works in other Courts the counsel again went to the trial court to cross-examine the plaintiff and there he came to know that the statement of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 has been closed without cross-examination. He further contended that the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to close the statement of Kedarmal P.W. 1 particularly when the counsel for the defendant appeared before the Court many times on that day, the trial court should not have passed such an order before closing hours of the day, the counsel for the defendants submitted an application the same day before the trial court alongwith the affidavits of Shri Laxmilal, Advocate and Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate and the trial court dismissed it the same day without assigning sufficient reasons. He also contended that on that date the case was adjourned to 11-02-1991 for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses of the plaintiff and as such closure of the plaintiffs cross-examination was meaningless, the said affidavits have not been properly considered, note given below the statement of Kedarmal P.W. 1 that the defendants counsel do not want to cross-examine is wholly wrong and it simply show that the trial court is highly prejudiced with the defendants. He lastly contended that the suit is for the ejectment of the defendants and they would be greatly prejudiced if they do not get an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1.

4. Admittedly, the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff Kedarmal P.W. 1 was recorded on 26-11-1990. It is stated in para No. 2 of the revision petition as under:

"That the counsel for the defendant-petitioner went to the trial court in the early hours of the day i.e. on 26-11-1990 and he was prepared to cross-examine the plaintiff and to get his statement recorded. At that time the trial court ordered that the counsel for the defendant should come after lunch break. When the counsel for the defendant went to the trial Court to participate in the proceedings then the trial court was busy in recording the statement of the witnesses in criminal cases. Since the counsel for the defendant No. 2 was busy in his work in other courts because of the reason that, Addl. P.P. was sick and hence when he went to the trial court to cross-examine the plaintiff by closing the evidence of the plaintiff without cross-examination."

"Shri Laxmilal Kothari, Advocate has stated in paras No. 2 and 3 of his affidavit as follows........."

Shri Chandra Singh Bolia, Advocate has stated in para No. 1 of his affidavit as under.........:

5. It is clear from the affidavit of Shri Laxmilal, Advocate that he himself did not want to cross-e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document