PREM CHAND Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 5.8.1999 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Panipat. The learned trial Court passed the following order: -

(2.) UPON notice, it was reported by the registry that the respondents have been served. Despite service nobody appeared on 5.5.2000 and in the interest of justice the case was adjourned to 11.5.2000. On 11.5.2000 also the case was called out twice but nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents. Thus, arguments were heard in absence of the respondents.

(3.) THE above conduct of the petitioners is certainly indicative that the petitioner has been negligent about pursuing his case. However, the negligence of the petitioner is not of the kind which would left the petitioner with such consequences. It was certainly the duty of the petitioner to summon the witnesses and as appears from the above facts, he had taken steps to summon the witnesses, but they could not be examined because of suspension of work. The law of procedure is mean to achieve the ends of justice and to do substantial justice with an intention to finally and completely determine the dispute between the parties. It cannot be said that the order of the Court is without jurisdiction. However, the Court could have passed an order which would give complete background of the case with reasons and it may have been more appropriate if the learned trial Court would have passed order of lessor gravity before passing the impugned order. Closing defence of a party is an order of a very serious nature and, therefore, normally should preceded by order of lessor gravity. In this regard reference can be made to Mool Chand v. Presiding Officer and Anr. .