Bhajan Singh vs Mukhtiar Singh @ Harbhajan Singh

Sat Pal, J.—This petition has been directed against the order dated 12.2.1998 passed by the learned trial Court. By this order, the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the defendants.

After hearing the learned Counsel of the petitioner and having perused the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference in its jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C.

It may be relevant to note here that the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendants on 29.10.1997 and since no witness of the defendants was present, the case had to be adjourned to 24.11.1997, on which date the case had to be adjourned again to 6.1.1998 as no witness of the defendants was present. On 6.1.1998 case was received by the learned trial Court by transfer and as such on the request of the learned Counsel, case was adjourned to 5.2.1998. On 5.2.1998 one witness of the defendant was present and he was examined. As per the order reproduced in the petition, no other defendant witness was present on that day and it was in these circumstances that by way of last opportunity the case was adjourned to 12.2.1998. On 12.2.1998 no witness of the defendant was present and as such the learned trial Court had passed the impugned order. Keeping in view these facts, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court had no alternative but to pass the impugned order by closing the evidence of the defendants.

It may also be relevant to note here that on 12.2.1998 when the impugned order was passed, the case was adjourned to 26.2.1998. From the records, I find that even an application for obtaining the certified copy was filed by the petitionerdefendant on 2.4.1998 i.e. much after the date when the case was fixed for final arguments.

For the reasons recorded herein above, the petition is dismissed.