CHANDER WATI Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Chander Wati submits that it was a suit filed by Smt. Chander Wati's father Gurdit Singh against Krishan Chand for the recovery of Rs. 27,000/ - plus interest totalling Rs. 28,200/ - in which the court passed an order on 18.12.2000 whereby plaintiff's evidence has been closed. This order reads as follows : -

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no warrant for the Court to have ordered the closure of the plaintiffs evidence when the plaintiff had summoned PWs named Mukhtiar Singh, Nar Singh, Batjit Singh, Ex - Sarpanch. Sushil Kumar and others through the process of the Court and had deposited diet money for them together with the process fee for service upon them through the agency of the court. I think there is weight in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner plaintiff. Petitioner - plaintiff had summoned these witnesses as far back in the year 1995 and had deposited diet money for them. He submits that the plaintiff had been putting in process fee for them each time when there was report of non -service on them and there was no laxity on the part of the plaintiff in putting in process fee for service on them. He further submits that the Court could not record evidence of all the witnesses in attendance because of paucity of time with it.

(3.) Keeping in view that there was no default on the part of the plaintiff so far as summoning of her witnesses are concerned, I think this revision should be allowed. This revision is accordingly allowed. Learned trial Court is directed to serve the remaining unserved witnesses through its own agency. Plaintiff shall put in necessary process fee. Even otherwise when the Court was adjourning the case for defendant's evidence for the adjourned date, the Court should have summoned the plaintiffs evidence for the adjourned date. Plaintiff shall pay Rs. 500/ -as costs to the defendant if this order is meant to be availed of.