RAVI NAYYAR Vs. BHAGAT PARLADH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/defendant-Ravi Nayyar has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 10.9.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, vide which his evidence was closed by order. According to the petitioner, Ram Piari, who was arrayed as defendant No.1 in the suit filed by Amrik Singh Chopra, expired on 11.12.2007 and he was brought on record as her legal representative, vide order dated 30.1.2009. The issues in the suit were framed on 9.4.1994 and the plaintiff took 15 years to conclude his evidence and numerous opportunities were granted to him. His evidence was closed on 13.2.2008. Thereafter the evidence of the defendant was being recorded.

(2.) THE witnesses produced by him could not be cross-examined on account of lapse on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff and the suit was repeatedly adjourned for cross-examination of his witnesses. Ultimately, his evidence was closed by order by the trial court. He prayed that he would produce whole of his evidence on some short dates if he is afforded an opportunity to produce his evidence. He further prayed that the impugned order be set aside and he be afforded an opportunity to lead his evidence.

(3.) IT has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could not conclude his evidence on account of the lapse on the part of the counsel for the plaintiff to cross-examine his witnesses, who were repeatedly produced in the court. A valuable right of the petitioner would be defeated in case he is not allowed an opportunity to produce his evidence, especially when the court waited for 15 years for closing the evidence of the plaintiff. The right of the petitioner could not have been axed by the trial court just within a period of two years.