2002 PLP 1887 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑O. XVII, R.3 & O.XXXVII, Rr.2, 3 & S.115‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Closing of evidence ‑‑‑Revisional jurisdiction ‑‑‑Scope‑‑ Defendant, on the last date fixed for production of evidence requested for further adjournment for producing another witness whose particulars could not be disclosed by defendant‑‑‑Court declined request of defendant and closed his evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court, in closing evidence of defendant neither had committed any illegality nor any irregularity‑‑ Jurisdiction under S.115, C. P. C. could not be invoked to interfere with discretion regarding matters which were within discretion of subordinate Courts‑‑‑Order closing evidence of defendant/petitioner passed by Court below had shown that it was neither a case of irregular exercise, non -exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction‑‑‑No interference by way of revision was warranted in the case, in circumstances. Asghar Ali Ansari for Petitioner. He has been heard. Briefly stated the facts are that a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,000 under Order 37, C.P.C., wherein summary procedure is followed, was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. .

2. On 14‑2‑2002 adjournment was sought by the petitioner (defendant in the said suit) which was granted on cost of Rs.100 and is was clarified by the Court that last opportunity was being provided to the defendant for producing his evidence on 16‑3‑2002.

3. On this date, although the evidence was present, it was not produced and counsel for the defendant filed a written application for adjournment stating that efforts for compromise were being made and an adjournment was granted on the said written request for submitting the compromise deed on the next date and it was also made clear by the Court that in case compromise is not effected, in that event it would be last opportunity to the defendant to produce his evidence and the case was' adjourned for the said purpose to 10‑4‑2002.

4. On this date whatever evidence was produced by the defendant was recorded .by the trial Court. The defendant requested for further adjournment for producing another witness whose particulars could not be disclosed by him. The said request was declined and evidence was closed under Order 17, rule 3, C.P.C. This order is assailed in this revision petition.

5. In the circumstances stated above, the Court did neither commit any illegality or irregularity in closing the defendant's evidence. Jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. cannot be invoked to interfere with the discretion regarding matters which are within the discretion of it the subordinate Courts. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is neither a case of irregular exercise, non‑exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction hence interference by way of revision is not warranted. The revision petition is dismissed in limine. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information. H.B.T./M‑1283/L Revision petition dismissed.