Judgment Summary — B.R. Tuli, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners are vendee-defendants in a suit for preemption. The trial court had fixed August 29, 1973 for the evidence of the petitioners' witnesses; although those witnesses had been served, they were not present on that date. An order of August 29, 1973 recorded that warrants for their appearance had already been issued but had not been received back; the court directed fresh warrants to be issued on the previous process-fee if it had already been deposited and adjourned the matter to September 14, 1973 subject to payment of costs of Rs. 25/-. That August 29 order was not challenged in revision.

The present petition challenges the subsequent order dated September 14, 1973 which noted that no witness was present because the warrants had not been issued (process-fee was insufficient), directed issuance of bailable warrants (bailable in the sum of Rs. 500 each) on payment of the balance process-fee for October 1, 1973, and stated that the adjournment granted was the "last adjournment" subject to further costs of Rs. 25/-. Arguments on an application were also listed for that date.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the trial court's imposition of costs (Rs. 25) for the adjournment was justified.
2. Whether the trial court was correct in describing the adjournment as the "last adjournment" in the circumstances.
3. What type of warrants (bailable or non-bailable) should be issued against the petitioners' witnesses when they fail to appear, and what role process-fee payment and service play in that decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

• The petitioners contended that the witnesses to whom bailable warrants had been issued were under the influence of the plaintiff pre-emptors, and that the petitioners could not procure their attendance.
• On that basis the petitioners prayed that warrants of arrest (non-bailable warrants) should be issued against those witnesses.
• The petitioners objected to the imposition of costs of Rs. 25 for the adjournment and complained that the trial court should not have declared the adjournment to be the "last adjournment".

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the sequence of procedural events and the petitioners' contentions and reached its conclusions for the following reasons, stated in the opinion:

1. On the question of costs: The judge found that the order awarding costs of Rs. 25 was not unjustified because an unnecessary adjournment had been occasioned by the petitioners' failure to deposit the proper process-fee for issuance of warrants of arrest against the witnesses. In short, the absence of a correct process-fee caused the delay and justified the cost imposition.
2. On the "last adjournment" grievance: The court identified that the petitioners were responsible for getting the warrants served on their witnesses, but the petitioners could not compel the witnesses personally to attend. Consequently, the trial court's characterization (that it was the last adjournment) was not treated as an unjustifiable exercise of discretion given the petitioners' procedural responsibility.
3. On the type of warrants to be issued: The court acknowledged that if the petitioners effect service of bailable warrants and the witnesses nevertheless do not appear, then the petitioners are entitled to ask for non-bailable (arrest) warrants. The judge therefore directed that, because further proceedings had been stayed by the Motion Bench while admitting the revision petition, the learned trial court should issue bailable warrants against the witnesses in accordance with law. The court further directed that if, despite lawful service of those bailable warrants, the witnesses fail to appear, non-bailable warrants shall be issued if so prayed by the petitioners.
4. Procedural consequence on the revision: Given these directions and the procedural posture (stay by Motion Bench), the court disposed of the revision petition and made no order as to costs.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The revision petition is disposed of.

Implications and direct effects on the parties:

• The learned trial court is directed to issue bailable warrants (bailable in the sum stated in the earlier order) against the petitioners' witnesses in accordance with law, on payment of the required process-fee as directed previously.
• If the witnesses are served with those bailable warrants and still fail to appear, the trial court shall issue non-bailable warrants upon the petitioners' prayer.
• The costs order (Rs. 25) imposed by the trial court was upheld as justified by the appellate judge because the adjournment flowed from the petitioners' failure to deposit the proper process-fee; however, the revisional court made no separate order as to costs in disposing the revision petition.
• No broader legal precedent or novel principle was announced in this opinion beyond the application of ordinary procedural rules about process-fees, service, bailable and non-bailable warrants, and the consequences of non-appearance after service.

End of summary. This summary is limited to and derived exclusively from the contents of the provided opinion.