DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ARYAN DI HATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition by the defendant is directed against the order dated 9-8-85 passed by the learned Trial Judge whereby the evidence of defendant was closed.

(2.) I have looked into the record and I find that the defendant has availed of four opportunities and inspite of that neither any witness was summoned nor any witness was present. In this situation normally no error can be found with the impugned order. It is clear beyond doubt that the defendant has been highly negligent in prosecutihg the case.

(3.) Mr. Talwar has, however, brought to my notice the peculiar features of the suit which in my opinion may be prejudicial to the public as a whole if the defendant is not allowed to lead evidence. After considering the entire circumstances of the case, I allow this petition and direct that one more opportunity should be given to the defendant to produce its entire evidence at its own responsibility. Mr. Talwar states that the petitiiner/ defendant will not ask for a second opportunity and will close its case on one occasion.