SUKHWINDER SINGH Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF-petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 29.07.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby evidence of the plaintiff - petitioner was directed to be closed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner states that plaintiff has already examined three witnesses and two more witnesses are to be examined. He further states that on the date fixed i.e. 29.07.2010, adjournment was sought on the ground that witnesses are not available for that date, however, the same was refused. LEARNED counsel further states that on the date either fixed by this Court or by the learned Trial Court, entire evidence shall be produced before the learned Trial Court and no further adjournment shall be sought.

(3.) IN the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind, the golden rule that none should be given walk over and lis between the parties, as far as possible, should be decided at its own merit after affording sufficient opportunities to both the parties to place on record entire evidence and material, this Court direct that learned Trial Court shall fix a date for the purpose of plaintiffs evidence. On the date so fixed, plaintiff-petitioner shall produce all the witnesses before the learned Trial Court for examination. If, for any reason, examination is not complete on the date so fixed, then learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to hold dayto- day trial or fix any future date, which is convenient to the Court. However, it is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner. Petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs to the respondents herein before the next date so fixed by the learned Trial Court. Petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.