' Respondent No,3, filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs,12,000, inter alia against the present petitioner. This suit was resisted by the defendants. Issues were framed; parties were put to trial; plaintiff produced and completed his evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of petitioner-defendant, who availed 3/4 opportunities to do the needful and was even granted -last opportunity, however, he could not produce the evidence, which was closed under provision of Order XVII, Rule 3, C.P.C., vide order, dated 5-4-1983. Against the above, petitioner has filed revision before the learned Additional District Judge, which has been dismissed on 26-4-1983. Hence this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the date when the petitioner's evidence was closed, petitioner was sick and could not appear before the Court.
' I am afraid that at the time when the case was called and impugned order by the trial Court was passed, no such fact was brought to the notice of the Court. This seems to be the result of an afterthought. No illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders have been shown, calling for any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.