Raghbir Singh vs Dina Nath

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—The plaintiff''s evidence was closed by the trial Court mainly on the ground that as many as 13 effective opportunities have been granted to him to lead evidence, but he has failed to conclude the same. Hence this Civil Revision.

Admittedly, the suit has already grown pretty old as it was instituted in the year 1996. Issues were framed in April, 1997. Ever since then the plaintiff had been afforded reasonable opportunities for producing his evidence, but he has failed to conclude the same. Whether the impugned order can be termed as legal and proper ? According to Mr. S.S. Rangi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, two witnesses namely Smt. S.K. Dhaliwal, wife of the stamp vendor and Dr. Atut Kumar Singla handwriting and finger expert, are left to the examined. Report Annexure P-2 dated May 14.5.1998 revealed that Smt. S.K. Dhaliwal, wife of the stamp vendor was served for June 9, 1999. but she failed to appear on the date fixed. The impugned order closing the evidence was also of the same date. If a summoned witness who has been duly served fails to appear before the Court, then it is the duty of the court to secure his presence. Order 16 Rules 8 to 10 of the CPC provide the procedure for procuring the attendance of the summoned witnesses. The object of the rule 10 is to enable (he Court to help the Parties to compel attendance of recalcitrant witness, who even though served, fails to appear without lawful excuse. It is the duty of the Court to enforce, if necessary, by coercive processes provided by the rule, attendance of witnesses required by parties. But the parties cannot be made to suffer for the non-appearance of the witnesses who have been duly served and do not appear in spite of the service of summons upon them. Procedure is meant for advancing and not obstructing the cause of justice.

As a logical corollary to this consideration, it must be held that order under revision needs not to be nullified. The Civil Revision is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner to examine the aforesaid witnesses subject to payment of costs of Rs. 500/-. In case the witnesses do take recourse to the provisions envisaged under Order 16 of the CPC to secure their attendance.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on April 5, 2001.

Copy of the order be given dasti.

Revision allowed.