BALDEVA Vs. MANOHAR LAL GAMBHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Karnal, dated 16th of January, 1980, vide which the evidence of the petitioner was closed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that he had summoned an officer of the Air Force to prove that on the day he was allegedly served at Karnal he was actually present in his Unit in the Army. The Court made efforts but could not get the witness served. Even the Dasti summons taken by the petitioner for the service of the witness failed. The Subordinate Judge closed the evidence as it was a very old case and the evidence was not produced by the petitioner inspite of his undertaking to produce it on his own responsibility.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties. When a witness, who is essential to prove the plea taken by a party and he has been summoned through the process of the Court, is not served, then the responsibility lies on the Court to have the witness served. If a person cannot be served because of the exigencies of the service in a direct manner, then the party summoning him cannot be denied the opportunity of examining him. The Court, of course can, in given circumstances, direct the parties to take Dasti summons. In the case in hand, the Subordinate Judge was not correct in closing the proceedings initiated at the instance of the petitioner in a situation in which blame could not squarely be fixed on him, as the witness being an Army personnel could not be served directly. The plea of the petitioner requires to be fully investigated. In the interest of justice, the order under revision is accepted.