Bhateri vs Satish and Others

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Advocate files memo of appearance for respondents. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for respondents.

The plaintiff was given a last opportunity to adduce all her evidence on 30.8.2012. When the matter came up for adducing evidence on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff having paid the cost earlier as imposed on her examined only one witness on her side. She was not prepared with other witnesses. As a result of which the trial Court closed the evidence on the side of the plaintiff holding that there was no justification to adjourn the case for further hearing.

Of course, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that 10 opportunities were already given, but the same were not effectively availed by the plaintiff.

It is found that on 30.8.2012, when the matter was coming up for hearing, the plaintiff had chosen to examine one of the witnesses on her side. Therefore, it is not as if that the plaintiff had not positively responded to the opportunities given to her. For some reason the plaintiff could not produce the other witnesses on 30.8.2012, when her evidence was closed.

Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that some more opportunities may be given to complete her evidence.

If further opportunity is not given to the plaintiff, the trial Court will be left with only the material evidence on the side of the defendant and the evidence of one witness on the side of the plaintiff. In the interest of justice, some more opportunities will have to be given to the plaintiff to complete her evidence.

Therefore, setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court on 30.8.2012, the trial Court is directed to give some more opportunities to the plaintiff to complete her evidence. Revision petition is allowed.