1. Smt. Krishna Devi, petitioner, had filed a suit against Darshan Kumar, respondent, seeking inter alia his ejectment from a shop situated at main Bazar Basholi.

2. She had pleaded that she reasonably required the suit shop for its occupation by Mrs. Sushma, her unemployed daughter-in-law, who wanted to run a Readymade Garment/Cosmetic, Store in the shop.

3. She, while leading her evidence, however, did not produce Sushma, as her witness, and it was after the closure of the evidence of the parties that she requested the trial Court to permit her to produce Sushma, who according to her was an important witness, for the just decision of the case.

4. Learned Munsiff, Basohli, has dismissed her application vide order dated 12-08-2006, aggrieved whereby, she has come to this Court seeking permission to produce Sushma as her witness, and resultantly setting aside of Learned Munsiffs Order.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar.

6. Going by literal construction and strict application of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the impugned order may not warrant any interference; But has such literal construction of the processual provision, by the t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document