ISHWAR SINGH Vs. UMRAOWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the application for summoning the witnesses was filed. Copy thereof is annexed to this petition as Annexure P/1. In fact, out of three summoned witnesses, two were examined but for Kanungo, who was to produce the original record and had not come present before the Court on that date. This position is not conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) VIDE order dated 11.8.1997, the learned trial Court has closed the evidence of the defendant despite the fact that on that very date three witnesses were examined and the other summoned witness was not present. There is a serious controversy whether the witness was summoned or not. I do not consider it necessary to go into that controversy. Passing an order directing the evidence of a party to be closed is an order of serious consequences and normally such order should be preceded by the order of lesser gravity. In order to avoid prejudice to the rights of the parties before the Court, it will always be appropriate to impose costs before closing evidence of a party. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh and others v. Smt. Manjit Kaur, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 382 (P&H) : Civil Revision No. 5885 of 1998.

(3.) RESULTANTLY , this petition is allowed, impugned order dated 11.8.1997 is set aside. The petitioner herein (defendant in the suit) shall be granted one final opportunity to examine only one witness i.e. Kanungo with record on the date of hearing now to be fixed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall be entitled to summon the witness through the process of the Court but his production before the Court will be at his risk and responsibility. The petitioner will not be entitled to any further adjournment. This revision is allowed subject to payment of Rs. 500/- as costs, the cost being conditional. Revision allowed.