Jawahar Lal Mehra vs Sh. Kamal Kumar Chopra and Another

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 11.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, vide which the application of the Petitioner for summoning the witnesses has been declined.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that issues in this case were framed on 25.9.2009 and the case was adjourned for evidence of the Plaintiff for 29.1.2010 and the Plaintiff was directed to furnish process fee, diet money and list of witnesses within a week. However, no such list of witnesses was filed by the Petitioner-Plaintiff, nor any process fee or diet money was deposited as per the requirement of law. On 29.1.2010, no evidence of the Petitioner-Plaintiff was produced and the case was adjourned to 20.5.2010. On 20.5.2010, no evidence was produced by the Plaintiff and the case was again adjourned to 16.9.2010 and on that date also, no witness was present and the case was adjourned for 25.1.2011. On 25.1.2011, only one witness was examined when an application for summoning of some witnesses was filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiff, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. However, the case was adjourned for remaining evidence of the Petitioner-Plaintiff at his own responsibility for 14.2.2011.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that now the case is fixed for 7.4.2011 for evidence of the Petitioner-Plaintiff.

In view of these facts, it is clear that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the Petitioner-Plaintiff to adduce his evidence by learned trial Court. As no application for summoning of the witnesses has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-Plaintiff within stipulated period as provided under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order.

However, it has been stated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Plaintiff that he will conclude his evidence at his own responsibility on the next date of hearing and that however, only assistance of the Court is required, as the witnesses are official and that their summons be given dasti to the Petitioner-Plaintiff.

Hence, in view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the trial Court is directed to give dasti summons of the official witnesses sought to be summoned by the Petitioner-Plaintiff. However, it is made clear that it would be the duty of the Petitioner-Plaintiff to bring the witnesses at his own responsibility and non service or non appearance of the witnesses despite service would not be a ground for adjournment and no further opportunity shall be granted to the Petitioner-Plaintiff by learned trial Court. The Petitioner-Plaintiff is also burdened with cost of Rs. 5000/-.

The present petition is disposed of accordingly.