Jaswinder Singh vs Inder Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.—Vide the impugned order, defendant''s evidence was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC on 9.5.2000 and the case was posted for plaintiffs'' rebuttal evidence and arguments for today i.e. 11.5.2000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that otherwise also there was no warrant for the closure of defendant''s evidence when the defendant had summoned the concerned clerk of the Electricity Department and had deposited the necessary diet money for him.

In Faqir Chand Dhobi v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur 1977(2) RLR 633 it was held that where the process fee and diet money had been deposited in time and the witnesses do not appear, the party was not to blame and order closing the evidence would be illegal.

If the Court was to adjourn the case from 9.5.2000, the Court should have adjourned the case for defen- dant''s evidence and plaintiffs rebuttal evidence or else the Court should have decided the case there and then on 9.5.2000. For this view, I am supported by a judgment reported as 1978(1)RLR 380.

The provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC are penal in character. These provisions should be resorted to when the grant of adjournment to the party for adducing its evidence is not at all justified. In this case, the trial Court should not have closed defendant''s evidence, instead when it was adjourning the case for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiffs, it should have allowed the defendant also to produce his evidence. So, the impugned order is set aside the trial Court is directed to allow the defendant an opportunity to produce evidence by summoning the witness of Electricity Department through the Court. Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate undertakes that the defendant will serve the concerned witness.

Revision is allowed.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner.

Revision allowed.