Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral) - The challenge in this revision petition, preferred by M/s IFB Industries Limited petitioner-defendant-company (for brevity “the defendant-company”), is to the impugned order dated 5.3.2014 (Annexure P7), by virtue of which, the trial Court has dismissed its application (Annexure P6) to disallow the examination of witness (PW) Bikramjit Nag.

2. Having heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-defendant- company, having gone through the legal provisions & record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard.

3. Ex facie, the argument of learned Senior counsel that since the trial Court has summoned PW Bikramjit Nag, along with other witnesses from Calcutta, in a very casual manner and without assigning any cogent reason, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside, is neither tenable nor the observations of Kerala High Court in case Jortin Antony and others v. Padmanabha Dasa Marthanda Varma and others 2000 AIR (Kerala) 369, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, the plaintiffs filed a suit for sp