GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. JASWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 19.10.2010 (Annexure P5) whereby his evidence was closed by order of the Court.

(2.) AS per the facts established on record the present suit was instituted on9.6.2007. Issues were framed on 23.2.2008. The plaintiffrespondent closed his evidence on 4.4.2008. Thereafter, petitioner stepped into the witness box on 3.12.2008 and also examined Hardip Singh. Thereafter, due to some application filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the case remained pending and further evidence could not be produced. On 19.10.2010 the impugned order was passed observing that the petitioner had already availed sufficient opportunities and there was no justification for further allowing any opportunity to lead any evidence. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage that petitioner earlier also filed an application for leading additional evidence which was declined by the trial Court on 13.10.2010 observing that when the case was fixed for defendant;s evidence there was no question of moving any application for additional evidence. Similarly, after passing of the impugned order, the petitioner had filed an application for allowing him to lead additional evidence which was also dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2010 observing that the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court and, therefore, he cannot be allowed to lead additional evidence.

(3.) IT is well settled that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are handmaid for the administration of justice and they are to be construed liberally. No doubt, petitioner availed many opportunities for leading his evidence, however, it cannot be disputed that when petitioner was leading his evidence some applications filed by the plaintiff respondent remained pending and, therefore, the evidence could not be led. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent as the case is still pending and the plaintiff-respondent has not led any evidence in rebuttal. Moreover, plaintiff-respondent can be very well compensated with suitable costs.