JIT SINGH Vs. CHANCHAL MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contends that plaintiffs witnesses were present on all the dates of hearing except on 4. 1. 1991 but their evidence could not be recorded either because of the strike by the lawyers or case was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the parties. The order dated 27. 8. 1990, the day on which the case was adjourned to 4. 1. 1991 is reproduced below:' on the request of parties, the case is adjourned to 4. 1. 1991 for P. Ws. and present P. Ws. are bound down. "

(2.) IT is apparent from the reading of this order that the case was adjourned to 4. 1. 1991 at the request of the parties and P. Ws. present on that date were bound down for 4. 1. 1991. The trial Court clearly erred inclosing the evidence of the plaintiffs. If the plaintiffs witnesses were not present in spite of the fact that they were bound down for the next date of hearing, the trial Court should have taken coercive measures to effect the presence of the witnesses before it. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks one more opportunity' to produce his all witnesses. In the interest of justice, petitioners are permitted a final opportunity to produce their evidence at their own risk and responsibility on the date to be fixed by the trial Court on which date plaintiffs shall finally conclude their evidence by producing all their witnesses. Petitioners through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29-4-1991.