MADAN MOHAN SETHI Vs. NIRMAL SHYAM KUMAR SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition assailing the impugned order dated 28.10.1997, by which the evidence of the defendant/petitioner was closed. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the suit was instituted in the year 1974 and the respondent/plaintiff's evidence got concluded only on 8.9.1997 and thereafter the petitioner/defendant's evidence commenced only on 9.9.1997. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the Trial Court was proceeding post haste in the matter and the petitioner was being denied adequate opportunity for examining the witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted an analysis of various dates from November, 1980 to put forward his submission that the petitioner could not be held to be responsible for the delay in the matter, which according to the petitioner was attributable significantly to the respondent also. The finding of the Trial Court in the impugned order holding that petitioner was responsible for delay of 23 years was assailed as contrary to record.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently refuted the petitioner's allegation that the case had been delayed on account of the plaintiff/respondent. Counsel for the respondent submits that it was the dilatory tactics of the petitioner which have deprived the respondent/plaintiff of relied and the petitioner has been granted not less than 18 opportunities to lead his evidence. It is also stated that the learned Trial Court is only complying with the directions given by the Court earlier for a time bound disposal of the suit.

(3.) Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel, perused the order sheet and pleadings of the parties, I am of the view that petitioner deserves further opportunity to lead evidence. The impugned order closing evidence is set aside. The number of opportunities provided to the petitioner are all within a period of one to one and a half months.