M/s Gurnam Singh Malkit Singh vs Pritam Kaur and others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is plaintiff''s revision, brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 02.09.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, vide which the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed.

The plaintiff-petitioner had brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,28,365/- against Karnail Singh, defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff had been leading its evidence. On 02.09.2011 no evidence of the plaintiff was present and even the costs subject to payment of which adjournment was granted for 02.09.2011, was not paid. Learned trial court closed the evidence of the plaintiff, keeping in view the statement made by learned counsel for the plaintiff on 20.07.2011 whereby he had undertaken to bring the entire evidence of the plaintiff on the next date, failing which his evidence was deemed to be closed.

I have heard Mr. J.S. Bhandohal, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record carefully.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned trial court was not justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiff. According to him, the costs which could not be paid was in a sum of Rs. 200/- only.

It is a case where after availing a number of opportunities, the court granted one more opportunity to the plaintiff for its evidence on the statement of its counsel that the evidence of the plaintiff may be deemed to be closed if the same was not brought on that date. If the evidence could not be closed in a case where no evidence was brought despite such undertaking, then the evidence of a party could never be closed by order of the court in any case. Even the costs in a sum of Rs. 200/- was not paid. There was no justification for non-payment of costs, the payment of which was a conditional precedent for further prosecution of the suit of the plaintiff.

For these reasons, I do not find learned trial court to have committed any illegality in making the impugned order. The revision petition, therefore, has no merit and the same is dismissed.