1. The defendant in the lower Court is the petitioner in this revision petition. The respondent filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs 370 from the petitioner. In the suit, the respondent examined one witness and closed his case. The petitioner filed an application before the trial Court to examine the respondent (plaintiff) as a witness on his behalf the trial Court rejected his application. The petitioner has filed this revision questioning the correctness of the said order.

2. Shri Manohar Rao Jagirdar, the learn-ed counsel for the petitioner, contends that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to reject the application of the petitioner praying that the plaintiff should be examined as a witness on his behalf. He argues that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure or in the Evidence Act, which prohibits a party from calling any person and examining him as his witness. The Court below was bound to summon the plaintiff as a witness on behalf of the petitioner. The trial Court had no jurisdiction to shut out the evidence on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The respondent is unrepresented in this Court Shri Jagirdar has fairly brought to my notice the observations of