Paramjit Kaur and another vs Surjit Singh and others

Nawab Singh, J.—This plaintiffs'' revision is directed against the order dated March 15th, 2012 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dhuri whereby evidence of the petitioners was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter-alia, urged that the petitioners'' one witness was present on the date fixed and he was examined. For the remaining evidence, the petitioners filed an application on March 15th, 2012 and the trial Judge passed the following order:-

One PW is present and examined. No other PW is present. The plaintiff has failed to conclude her entire evidence despite availing five effective opportunities and despite warning her about the last and final opportunities. It was contended by ld. Counsel for plaintiff that he had filed an application for preparation of excerpt by Patwar Moharrir, who could not prepare the excerpt in time, but record shows that application for depositing of excerpt fee was filed on 5.3.2012 i.e. 10 days before this order, whereas case was adjourned from 21.1.2012 to this date. Despite period of three months, plaintiff is unable to put forth any sincere and genuine efforts in this regard and keeping in view her act and conduct, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for plaintiff for further adjournment, nor I find any justification to adjourn the case for evidence of plaintiff. Accordingly, evidence of plaintiff is closed by order. On request, adjourned to 5.4.2012 for evidence of defendants. PF/DM/List of witnesses be produced within 7 days.

In view of the order passed, the evidence of the petitioners should not have been closed rather the case should have been adjourned for awaiting the excerpt duly prepared by the revenue authorities.

Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that he be granted one opportunity to lead evidence mentioned in the order dated March 15th, 2012 and that too, on their own responsibility on the date fixed, that is, April 5th, 2012.

In view of this, revision is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. The petitioners are accorded one opportunity to lead evidence on the date fixed, that is, April 5th, 2012 on their own responsibility. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart substantive justice to the parties and to save the huge expenses, which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. Still, if dissatisfied, the respondents may move this court for recalling this order. In this regard, reliance can be placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Batala Machine Tools Workshop Cooperative vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gurdaspur (CWP No. 9563 of 2002) decided on June 27th, 2002.