Ravi Nayyar vs Bhagat Parladh Singh and Others

Gurdev Singh, J.—Petitioner/Defendant-Ravi Nayyar has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.9.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which his evidence was closed by order. According to the Petitioner, Ram Piari, who was arrayed as Defendant No. 1 in the suit filed by Amrik Singh Chopra, expired on 11.12.2007 and he was brought on record as her legal representative, vide order dated 30.1.2009. The issues in the suit were framed on 9.4.1994 and the Plaintiff took 15 years to conclude his evidence and numerous opportunities were granted to him. His evidence was closed on 13.2.2008. Thereafter the evidence of the Defendant was being recorded. The witnesses produced by him could not be cross-examined on account of lapse on the part of the counsel for the Plaintiff and the suit was repeatedly adjourned for cross-examination of his witnesses. Ultimately, his evidence was closed by order by the trial court. He prayed that he would produce whole of his evidence on some short dates if he is afforded an opportunity to produce his evidence. He further prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be afforded an opportunity to lead his evidence.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not conclude his evidence on account of the lapse on the part of the counsel for the Plaintiff to cross-examine his witnesses, who were repeatedly produced in the court. A valuable right of the Petitioner would be defeated in case he is not allowed an opportunity to produce his evidence, especially when the court waited for 15 years for closing the evidence of the Plaintiff. The right of the Petitioner could not have been axed by the trial court just within a period of two years.

The proceeding orders passed by the trial court in the suit have been re-produced in the petition itself. The evidence of the Plaintiff was closed by order on 13.2.2008 and thereafter the suit was fixed for the evidence of the Defendant. The Defendant produced her witnesses but they were not cross-examined by the Plaintiff and they were bound down at the expenses of the Plaintiff himself. Thereafter, the Defendant died and the present Petitioner was brought on record as her legal representative. Thereafter, the suit was repeatedly adjourned for the remaining evidence of the Defendant. Numerous opportunities were granted to the Petitioner, who had been producing his witnesses in the court one after the other. No doubt on some of the dates their cross-examination was deferred on the request of the Plaintiff but even if those dates are excluded more than 10 opportunities were granted to the Petitioner for producing his evidence. Last opportunity was granted to him on 27.7.2010. Further opportunity was granted to him, subject to payment of costs. It was only thereafter that his evidence was closed by order. Thus, the order closing his evidence was preceded by order of lesser gravity and it was made known to him that last opportunity was being granted. As per the mandate of the Code of Civil Procedure, he was entitled to only three opportunities for producing his evidence. Though the same cannot be said to be the maximum limit, yet it cannot be said that innumerable opportunities can be granted to a party for producing his evidence.

In view of what has been stated above, I conclude that there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed.