A.S.Nehra, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9-10-1992 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kurukshetra, by which the petitioner (complainant) was directed to take dasti summons of the doctor and to serve the doctor at his own responsibility. The rest of the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. B Aggarwal, Advocate, has contended that there is no provision for directing the petitioner to obt in dasti summons; that the petitioner has already deposited expenses for the doctor that it was the duty to summon the doctor and that the petitioner cannot be directed to obtain dasti summons for the service of the doctor. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Joginder Kumar v. Vijay Kumar, (1991) 18 Cr. L .T. 127

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that on 19 2-1992 Sat Pal petitioner had made a statement in the Court that he shall bring the entire evidence on the next date of hearing otherwise his evidence be deemed to be closed and therefore, the evidence of the petitioner was rightly closed by the Trial Magistrate.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the par