SHAM LAL Vs. HUKUM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition arises out of the order dated 30.3.1998 passed by the Civil Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 44 of 1990. By the aforesaid order the Civil Judge closed the evidence of the defendant and fixed the suit for final arguments. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the defendant as petitioner filed the present petition, on which I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

(2.) On 1.10.1997 the suit was directed to be listed for recording the entire evidence of the defendant on 3.11.1997. When the suit was listed on 3.11.1997 no witness of the defendant was present nor any witness was served for the said date. A request was made on behalf of the petitioner/defendant that only one more witness was to be examined. On the basis of the aforesaid prayer the Trial Court fixed the suit for evidence of the defendant on 2.12.1997. It was make clear therein that no further adjournment would be granted. On 2.12.1997 the lawyers were on strike and accordingly the suit was directed to be listed on 13.1.1998 for evidence of the defendant. On 13.1.1998 the process issued to one employee of Slum Department of Delhi Development Authority was returned unserved and therefore. Trial Court adjourned the suit for 10.12.1998 for defendant's evidence as a last opportunity. Process for the said witness was returned unserved even on the next date i.e. 10.2.1998 and the Court adjourned the matter for 9.3.1998 for recording evidence of the defendant as last and final date. On 9.3.1998 again the process was returned unserved with the report that the address of the witness was incorrectly written. The defendant sought for an adjournment and on that prayer the suit was adjourned to 30.3.1998 for recording evdence of the defendant as a last and final date. On 30.3.1998 the matter was again listed. On that date also the witness was neither .present nor was served. Although time was granted to the defendant to take steps on 9.3.1998 yet no steps were taken till 23.3.1998 although the matter was fixed for recording evidence on 30.3.1998 as a last and final opportunity.

(3.) It was submitted by the Counsel appearing for the defendant in the Trial Court that the steps were not taken earlier as the last address of the witness was not known. The said excuse was found by the Trial Court as a lame excuse inasmuch as the defendant was earlier given about seven opportunities and inspite of that even the correct address of the witness could not be furnished by the defendant. The Trial Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the defendant instead of taking steps on 9.3.1998 or a date immediately succeeding took steps only on 23.3.1998, thereby wasting around 15 days and that he could not properly explain why no steps were taken for summoning the witness from 9.3.1998 to 23.3.1998. As the steps were taken late, the process was not received back. Considering, the aforesaid facts, request for adjournment was refused and the evidence of the defendant was closed and the suit was directed to belisted for final arguments.