JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the defendants against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur dated April 6, 1994 by which their evidence has been closed. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners filed a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant-petitioners on various grounds. The suit was decreed.The defendant-petitioners filed appeal. It was remanded to the trial court with the direction to permit the defendant-petitioners to amend their written- statement, to frame additional issues and record the evidence of the parties. After remand, written statement was got amended additional issues were framed and dates were fixed for the evidence of the defendant-petitioners. On April 6, 1994, the defendant-petitioners' witness Vijay Kumar D.W. 7 was only present and no other witness was present. On March 29, 1994, list of witnesses, duly filled up summons and process fee were filed with an application for issuing the summons to the witnesses. The learned trial Court closed the evidence, observing that the appellate court in its remand order gave one opportunity to each party to produce their witnesses. 3. I t is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners that on April 6, 1994, the statement of Vijay Kumar was not completely recorded, April 12, 1994 was fixed for completing his statement and despite it their evidence was closed. He further submitted that the defendant-petitioners took steps for summoning their witnesses as early as on March 29, 1994 but the trial court did not issue summons to them. He lastly contended that if the defendant-petitioners arc not given an opportunity to produce their witnesses who are mostly officers of the company and Government servants they would suffer an irreparable loss. 4. No useful purpose will be served in issuing notice to the plaintiff-non-petitioners. On the contrary, it will further delay the disposal of the suit. 5. The appellate Court remanded the case in view of the two subsequent events. Firstly, four shops of the plaintiff-non-petitioners were vacated by the Sudarshan Chit Fund Company and their possession was obtained by the plaintiffs and secondly, the suit shop was required for carrying on the agency business of the T.V.S. Company and the agency has been cancelled. 6. 5. The appellate Court remanded the case in view of the two subsequent events. Firstly, four shops of the plaintiff-non-petitioners were vacated by the Sudarshan Chit Fund Company and their possession was obtained by the plaintiffs and secondly, the suit shop was required for carrying on the agency business of the T.V.S. Company and the agency has been cancelled. 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of its jurisdiction in hastily closing the evidence of the defendant-petitioners. The defendant-petitioners deserve to get an opportunity to produce their witnesses but conditionally. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur dated April 6, 1994 closing the defendants' evidence is set aside. The defendant-petitioners are given an opportunity to produce their evidence on the following terms and conditions : (1) They file duly filled up summons of their witnesses for service through process server, through the Head of Office and also for sending through registered/A.D. post to the witnesses directly. In other words, three sets of summonses in respect of each witness are to be filed, (2) They file requisite process-fee and duly filled up and stamped envelopes for registration, (3) They take summonses 'dasti' for service by themselves as provided under Order 16 rule 7A, C.P.C. (4) They deposit the amount of salary of one day of each Government servant and also amount of expenses for all their witnesses as directed by the trial court. (5) They take repeated steps for the service of summonses in emergent course upon the un-served witnesses within three days of the return of un-served summonses. (6) In case of failure of witnesses to appear before the trial court despite service of the summonses, they take all necessary steps within a week of the date fixed (to be fixed by the trial court) for the enforcement of their attendance by their arrest and/or attachment of their properties as provided under Order 16 Rules 10 & 11, C.P.C. (7) They seek no adjournment. 8. The defendant-petitioners will appear before the trial Court on April 20,1994. 9. The trial court will pass necessary orders in the light of the above order, keeping in view the provisions of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 111 and 116 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986. 8. The defendant-petitioners will appear before the trial Court on April 20,1994. 9. The trial court will pass necessary orders in the light of the above order, keeping in view the provisions of Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Rules 110, 111 and 116 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986. Above- mentioned steps No. 1 to 5 will be taken within a week of the order of the trial court fixing the date for the defendants' evidence.Petition Allowed *******