Sat Gur Singh vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated 9.10.1996 vide which the learned trial Court had closed the evidence of the plaintiff. The delay in filing the present revision has been condoned by a separate order of the same date.

The impugned order dated 9.10.1996 reads as under :-

"Today the case was fixed for recording evidence of defendant as well as for recording evidence of plaintiff, if any present. Since no evidence of plaintiff is present and the Advocates are on strike, therefore, the case is now adjourned to 11.12.1996 for evidence of defendant."

On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on the relevant date, the petitioner was present in Court, but his evidence could not be recorded because members of the Bar were on strike. The petitioner is stated to be an 70 years old person and the impugned order would result in great hardship to him as the truck was stolen and his claim would ultimately be the source of his livelihood. Even the application for leading additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17-A C.P.C. had been dismissed. As such the petitioner has been rendered remedyless.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that the order dated 9.1.10.1996 is not in conformity with the settled principles of law. Firstly, the case was fixed for evidence of both the parties on 9.10.1996. If the Court was to close the evidence, then it ought to have closed the evidence of both the parties and not of the petitioner alone. Secondly, the order is a very cryptic one and does not give the facts or details of dates which persuaded the learned Court in passing the impugned order closing the evidence of the petitioner.

Application of mind and judicial satisfaction is the basis of administration of justice. Passing an order of closing of evidence of a party is an order with serious consequences and, therefore, there should be proper application of J mind by the learned Court and it must at least record some valid and proper reasons for closing the evidence. Certainly it does not need that the Courts should write detailed judgments in this regard, but the content of the order must reflect judicial satisfaction of the Court concerned while passing order of such serious consequences. I am of the considered view that closure of evidence should be an order passed in gradual stage. At least last opportunity with costs or otherwise must be granted to a party before the learned Courts below pass an order for directing closure of evidence of a party.

It has come to the notice of this Court in number of cases that sometimes 8 to 12 opportunities are granted for recording of evidence of a party and then all of a sudden on the 9th or 13th date of hearing the evidence is closed only on the ground that number of opportunities have been granted. Certainly how many opportunities need to be granted to a party to conclude its evidence is a matter which primarily and fairly falls in the discretion of the learned trial Court, but such discretion and orders closing evidence of a party must be passed on the basis of the settled principles of law keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case.

In order words the settled canons governing this aspect of the procedural law, which has the effect of affecting substantial rights of the parties, must be good in its content; satisfy the reasons leading to the passing of such an order and preferably should be a gradual step which is preceded by imposition of costs, with or without last opportunity. The purpose is that not only the counsel, but the party itself is put at notice that on the coming date, there is every possibility of his evidence being closed by an order of the Court, if he defaulted to do the needful. This also appears to be the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

For the reasons aforestated, I would set aside the order dated 9.10.1996 and would direct that the petitioner shall produce before the learned trial Court its entire evidence, at his own risk and responsibility, on the next date of hearing. No further opportunity would be allowed to the petitioner to lead his evidence. In the event of default, the evidence of the petitioner herein, would be liable to be closed. The petition is, therefore, allowed in the above terms subject to payment of Rs. 1500/- as costs, costs being conditional to the commencement of the evidence of the petitioner on the date of hearing. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 19.12.1998.