Judgment 1. The challenge in the present revision by the plaintiff is to the orders passed by learned trial Court on 21.11.2003 whereby the statements of Sarv Shri Joga Singh, Gurpritam Singh and M. L. Dhawan, witnesses of the petitioner, were not recorded purportedly in terms of the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.4806 of 2003 dated 16.10.2003. Earlier on 9.5.2003, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed for the failure of the petitioner to conclude its entire evidence. On the said date, one witness Munsha Singh was present in the Court but since he has not produced the summoned record, the evidence was closed. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this court in C. R. No.3086 of 2003 and this Court has passed an order on 8.7.2003 to the effect that if the plaintiff produces Munsha Singh alongwith the record, on the date already fixed, the trial Court will take the evidence of the said witness. However, on the date fixed, the witness could not be examined as the copy of the order was not available with the petitioner. The learned trial Court passed an order on 25.7.2003, closing the evidence of the petitioner. 2. The said order became subject matter of challenge before this court in C. R. No.4806 of 2003, wherein the petitioner was granted another opportunity to produce Munsha Singh alongwith the record subject to payment of Rs.5,000/-. On 21.11.2003, the cost of Rs.5,000/- was paid before the trial Court. The statement of Shri Munsha Singh was also recorded. But an application filed by the petitioner to examine Sarv shri joga Singh, Gurpritam Singh and M. L. Dhawan, as witnesses of the plaintiff was declined for the reason that the High Court has permitted to record the statement of Shri Munsha Singh alone. The said order is under challenge in the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the witnesses of the petitioner were present in the Court on the said date. 4. As the witnesses were present, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to record the statements of the witnesses so present. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court reported as Mange Ram Vs. Brij Mohan and others AIR 1983 Supreme Court 925. 5. 4. As the witnesses were present, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to record the statements of the witnesses so present. Reference is made to the decision of the Apex Court reported as Mange Ram Vs. Brij Mohan and others AIR 1983 Supreme Court 925. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that this Court has permitted only examination of Shri Munsha Singh and therefore, apart from Shri Munsha Singh, plaintiff cannot be permitted to examine any other witness. It is further argued that the plaintiff is responsible for delay in conclusion of the suit and in the event of the decree being passed against the defendant, the interests of defendant are to be seriously prejudiced as the interest liability on account of delay in the suit would fall upon the defendant. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court on 21.11.2003, suffers from patent illegality and cannot be sustained in law. Once the witnesses of the plaintiff were present in the Court, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to record their statements even if, this court has not specifically permitted the petitioner to produce such witnesses. The entire purpose of the order of this Court was that there should not have been any delay in leading of the evidence and that parties should contest the dispute on merits. Since the witnesses were present in the Court, therefore, the trial Court should have recorded their statements as held by the HON BLE Supreme Court in Mange Rams case (supra ). The petitioner has paid the costs in terms of the order passed by this Court on 16.10.2003. The witnesses of the plaintiff were present on the said date. The consequences of non-examination of the witnesses on the said date, cannot be passed on to the petitioner as their non-examination was not on account of any default on the part of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, delay in leading the evidence from the said date cannot be attributed to the petitioner and consequently, the argument that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest in the event of suit being decreed, cannot be accepted. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2003, passed by the learned trial Court, is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to examine the aforesaid witnesses, in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.5.2006.