JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Plaintiff Satnarain @ Satya Narain has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 27.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi. 2. During the course of trial of the suit, evidence of defendant No.1 was closed by trial Court’s order dated 25.02.2009. Evidence of defendants No.2 to 6 was closed by trial Court’s order dated 10.06.2009. The case was adjourned for rebuttal evidence of plaintiff, if any and for arguments. 3. On 27.01.2010, while the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and for final arguments, defendant No.1 appeared in the Court and informed the Court that he was bed ridden at the time of evidence of the defendants and could not come in the Court. He expressed his desire to make his statement as witness. Learned trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 allowed the said prayer of defendant No.1 by invoking Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) and ordered recording of statement of defendant No.1 as witness. His examination-in-chief was accordingly recorded and cross-examination was deferred on the request of plaintiff to enable him to challenge order Annexure P-1 by way of revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that evidence of defendants was closed by orders of the trial Court and even application for additional evidence was not moved and therefore, there was no occasion for permitting defendant No.1 to appear as his witness at the stage of rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff and final arguments. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 vehemently contended that respondent No.1 is aged 85 years and earlier he could not appear as witness being bed ridden and therefore, in view of special circumstances, he has been rightly permitted to appear as witness by impugned order of the trial Court. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The contention raised by counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 can not be accepted. There was no written averment before the trial Court that defendant No.1 was earlier bed ridden and therefore, could not appear as witness at appropriate stage when the case was fixed for his evidence. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The contention raised by counsel for respondents No.2 to 6 can not be accepted. There was no written averment before the trial Court that defendant No.1 was earlier bed ridden and therefore, could not appear as witness at appropriate stage when the case was fixed for his evidence. There was also no material in support of this plea. No opportunity was given to the plaintiff by the trial Court to respond to aforesaid oral plea of defendant No.1. The impugned order is patently perverse and illegal and suffers from jurisdictional error. The procedure adopted by the trial Court is unheard of and is completely unknown to law. The impugned order is completely unsustainable. Evidence of defendants had been closed by Court orders after granting them adequate opportunities. Thereafter, if defendant No.1 wanted to appear as his witness, he should have either moved application for additional evidence or should have filed revision petition to challenge the order of the trial Court whereby his evidence had been closed. However, no such course was adopted by defendant No.1. On the other hand, trial Court adopted a novel procedure and passed the impugned order. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial Court is set aside. Statement of defendant No.1 recorded pursuant to the said order shall be deemed to be not part of the record. However, this order is without prejudice to rights of defendants to resort to any remedy available to them under the law. ------------