AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
17 paragraphs · 387 wordsG.C. Garg, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 20.3.1997 whereby the trial Court has closed the evidence of the
defendants by order. This is a revision at the instance of one of the defendants. It has been noticed in the impugned order that the plaintiffs closed
their evidence on 13.5.1993 and since then the suit was being fixed for evidence of the defendants on various dates. But the defendants did not
conclude their evidence during the period of about three and a half years. Trial Court also noticed that even if on the transfer of the suit from
Ambala to Panchkula, the defendants wanted to change their counsel, they could easily do so after they had come to know of the transfer of the
suit in July 1996. Even after the transfer of the suit, the defendants were afforded four opportunities including one last opportunity but they did not
produce a single witness.
Before me as well, the sole contention of the learned counsel is to the same effect. Besides it was urged that in the interest of justice, defendants
may be afforded only one opportunity for their evidence.
On a consideration of the matter, I hardly find any justification for accepting the contention. As noticed already, the suit for the first time was
fixed for evidence of the defendants on 19.8.1993 and they did not conclude their evidence till the date of the impugned order i.e. 20.3.1997. A
party cannot be allowed to linger on the case at its own whims and sweetwill and cannot be permitted as many opportunities as it wants for its
evidence. Some balance has to be struck somewhere. Last opportunity is specifically ordered with a view to alarm the party concerned to be more
serious in leading its evidence and to take all possible steps to conclude it by the date fixed for the purpose. In the present case, the suit relates to
the year 1989 and as noticed by the trial Court, the only intention of the defendants seems to be to delay the proceedings to save themselves from
the clutches of the decree that may possibly be passed against them in the suit. In the circumstances, I see no ground to interfere with the order
under revision and the same is consequently dismissed in limine.