1. Petitioners-plaintiffs have filed this Revision Petition questioning Additional District Judge, Jammus order of August 16, 2007 dismissing their application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure whereby they had sought permission for one of the appellants to appear as witness in the case, which, according to them, they could not do because of the inexperience and inadvertence of the counsel they had engaged in the trial court.

2. Petitioners learned counsel, Shri Bachan Lal Kalgotra, submits that being rustic villagers, the petitioners had gone by the advice of their counsel in not appearing as their own witness during the trial of the case because the counsel was under a misconception that the statement which one of them had made in the suit when the respondents had been set exparte would survive for consideration by the Court despite lifting of ex-parte proceedings against the respondents. And that interest of justice would warrant providing an opportunity to the appellants to substantiate their claim to the property in dispute by appearing as a witness in the case.

3. Per contra, Shri R. P. Sharma, submitted that petitioners had taken numerous opportunities to p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document