JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appeared for private respondents.

2. By the order impugned dated 27.07.1999, the respondent No.2-Extra Officer, Kheri, District-Lakhimpur Kheri allowed the application of defendant No.1-Vishram Lal (private respondent No.3 herein), which was filed by him under Order 18 Rule 3-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "C.P.C.") praying therein to allow him to appear as a witness.

3. It would be apt to point out here that the application under Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. was filed after recording the statement of one witness of the defendant namely, Banwari Lal, whose statement was recorded on 19.03.1999 and he was duly cross-examined on 20.03.1999.

4. The contents of the application preferred by defendant No.1 under Order 18 Rule 3-A of C.P.C. are relevant to the view of this Court, as such, the same are being extracted herein under:-

^^mDr okn esa izkFkhZ izfroknh viuk xokg yk;k Fkk vkSj vius lkFk xokgha is'k djuk pkgrk FkkA dbZ ckj ykSV pqdk Fkk vr% izkFkhZ us igys viuk xokg is'k fd;k vkSj Lo;a gks xokgh esa is'k fd;k tSlh dh vk'kadk Fkh le;kHkko ds dkj.k izkFkhZ izfroknh dh xokgh fnukad 20-03-1999 dks ugha fy[kh tk ldrh FkhA ;fn ml fnu izkFkhZ Lo;a xokgh esa izLrqr dj fn;k gksrk rks xokg dh xokgha ugha fy[kh tkrhA vkt izkFkhZ izfroknh Lo;a dks lk{; esa izLrqr djkuk pkgrk gSA^^
vr% Jheku~ th ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ izfroknh ds U;k;fgr esa Lo;a dks crkSj lk{kh izLrqr gksus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkosA^^

5. From the above quoted contents of application, it appears that prior to 19.03.1999 and 20.03.1999 i.e. the date on which statement of witness of defendant namely Banwari Lal was recorded, dates were fixed in the case and on each date fixed the defendant No.1 and his witnesses were present but due to paucity of time, the statement of defendant No.1 and his witnesses could not be recorded, as such to avoid inconvenience to witness-Banwari Lal as also to avoid his non-presence on the dates to be fixed in the case he was produced before the Court and his statement was recorded and thereafter, on 22.06.1999, the application, in issue, was moved.

6. The order passed on the above quoted application which is impugned herein dated 27.07.1999 is also extracted herein under:-

^^iqdkj djkbZ xbZA mHk; i{k gkftj vk,A
izkFkZuk i= fnukad 27-06-1999 ij cgl lquh tk pdh gSA cgl ds nkSjku foJke yky ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk
AIR 1987 enzkl 178 esa of.kZr th- ds- jko- cuke ,- gsujh rFkk AIR 1981 dydRrk 295 esa of.kZr HkksykukFk e.My vkfn cuke dkyh ikM++k e.My esa izfrikfnr fl)karks dk mYys[k djrs gq, izkFkhZ izfroknh ds c;ku djk, tkus dh fu;fer crk;k gSA nwljh vksj deky nkl oknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk cgl esa AIR 1995 enzkl 137 MkW- ih- ds eqDdwLokeh cuke m/s V.A. gchuk QeZ vkfn ds izfrikfnr fl)kUr dk mYys[k djrs gq, izkFkhZ izfroknh ds c;ku djus ls fu"ks/k djus dh ckr dgh gSA
mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkvksa dh cgl lquus ,oa mfYyf[kr izfrikfnr fl)karksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡prk gwa fd izkFkhZ dks U;k; fgr esa vius lk{; esa vius c;ku djkus dk volj nsuk mfpr gSA
vr% 50 :i;s gtkZus ij izkFkZuk i= fnukad 27-06-1995 Lohdkj dj izkFkhZ foJke yky dks Lo;a ds c;ku ,oa ijh{k.k djkus dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA i=koyh fnukad 04-08-1999 dks is'k gksA^^

7. By the order impugned dated 13.12.2000, the respondent No.1-Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 27.07.1999. The relevant portion of the order on reproduction reads as under:-

^^3- fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk vius rdZ esa dgk x;k fd foi{kh dks igys Lo;a ds :i esa xokgh esa u mifLFkfr djds voj U;k;ky; esa cuokjh yky dks lk{; ds :i esa izLrqr djus dk vkns'k fn;k gS cuokjh yky blds i'pkr foi{kh laΠ1 foJke yky tksfd izfr oknh laΠ1 gSa] us Lo;a dks fcuk U;k;ky; dh iwoZ vuqefr ds xokg ds :i esa izLrqr fd;k gS ftl ij fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls vkifRr iLrqr dh x;h ftls voj U;k;ky; }kjk fujLr dj