Honble JAIN, J.— This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Munsif No.2, Jodhpur dated November 9, 1993 by which he has closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner and has fixed the case for final arguments. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2). The plaintiff-non-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed premises against the defendant-petitioner. On February 15, 1992 , the plaintiff closed his evidence and April 9, 1992 was fixed for the evidence of the defendant. Thereafter, several dates were fixed for the same purpose. On November 9, 1993, the impugned order was passed.

(3). It has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the same day (9.11.93) an application was moved before the trial court that the defendants witness Kailash Chandra could not come as the plaintiff had threatened him with dire consequences if he appeared before the trial court to give his statement and has prayed that an opportunity be given for examining him on commission but the learned trial court did not care to pass any order on it. He further contended that the defendant aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document