Mohinder Singh vs Tulsi Dass

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.1987 whereby the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC (for short ''the Code'').

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence on 26.4.1987 and the case was adjourned by the trial Court for the evidence of the petitioner on 18.7.1986. On the date, however, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned the proper order to 25.7.1986. On that date by the order of the Presiding Officer the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner for 11.9.1986. On 11.9.1986 inspite of the fact that the witnesses were summoned none of them was served and the report was that they were not living in the village. The case was therefore, adjourned to 2.12.1986. On that date, according to the petitioner, the lawyers were on strike and another counsel appeared as proxy for his counsel and the case was adjourned to 7.2.1987 for his evidence. However, the learned counsel for the respondent points out that the lawyers were not on strike on that date and the case had been adjourned to 7.2.1987 in the presence of the counsel for the respondent. It is not necessary to resolve this part of the controversy.

It is, however, the admitted position that on 7.2.1987 the lawyers were on strike. Therefore, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner could be produced and the case was adjourned to 23.4.1987 in the absence of their counsel. The case of the petitioner is that he did not get knowledge through his counsel of the fact that the case had been adjourned to 23.4.1987. It was on the date the impugned order was passed closing the evidence of the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code.

In the circumstances set out above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should be given one last opportunity to produce evidence at his own responsibility. In case he fails to produce the evidence on the date which shall be fixed by the trial Court, hereafter, no further opportunity shall be granted to him and his evidence shall be closed. The petitioner has already summoned the witnesses whom he seeks to produce. His evidence on that date shall be confined to the witnesses so summoned or any other witness whom he brings to the Court at his own responsibility. Whether or not the witness are served with the assistance of the Court no further adjournment shall be granted.

Consequently, I allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 23.4.1987 and direct the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge to fix a date for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner at his own responsibility. If the petitioner so desires he may seek the assistance of the Court for summoning the witnesses but as already observed above no adjournment shall be granted on the ground that the process of the Court had not been served on those witnesses and this shall be the last opportunity. No costs. The parties, through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial Court on 5th December, 1988.