Krishan Lal and Another vs Raju

V.K. Ahuja, J.—The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division Mandi, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioners under Sections 151 CPC for permission to produce the witnesses.

A perusal of the allegations made shows that the applicants are Defendants No. 1 and 2 before the learned trial Court, who filed an application u/s 151 CPC for permission to produce the witnesses. It was alleged that the witnesses could not be produced on 5.3.2010 due to the death of one of the relatives and order was passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence and aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

A perusal of the record shows that the case was fixed for 5.3.2010 and it was observed by the learned trial Court that no D Ws of Defendants No. 1 and 2 are present. It was also observed that opportunities had been given to the Defendants to lead their evidence and dates of evidence were also mentioned in the order sheet and it was observed that sufficient time had already been given to Defendants No. 1 and 2 for leading evidence and, therefore, no further time can be granted.

It is clear that no witnesses had been summoned for 5.3.2010 when the order was passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence. It is also clear that no PF etc. had been filed for the date fixed and in case one of the relatives of the applicants had died, there may be justification for his absence but not for the witnesses who had not been summoned by the applicants. A perusal of the record as observed by the learned trial Court in its order sheet dated 5.3.2010 clearly shows that the defendants had been given sufficient opportunities. The first date given for defendants� evidence was on 30.9.2008, on which date, no witnesses were present nor steps were taken. Similar observation was also made on 10.11.2008. Thereafter, on 29.4.2009 also, it was observed that no DWs are present nor summoned and steps not taken. Assistance of Dasti summons not taken. Thereafter, the witnesses were not present on 15.6.2009 when the date was given subject to cost. Again all the witnesses were not present on 3.8.2009 and no costs were imposed and the case was again adjourned and finally the impugned order was passed on 5.3.2010.

It is, therefore, clear from a perusal of the record that the Court had been taken lenient in giving dates to the Defendants/Petitioners to produce the evidence, in which they had failed and the impugned order does not call for in interference by this Court, since there has to be end to the litigation and it is not the case of the Defendants/Petitioners that they had not been given sufficient opportunities to produce the evidence. Therefore, the impugned order does not call for an interference by this Court and the present petition is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. Interim order shall stand vacated. The learned trial Court shall try to dispose of the case as early a possible.