IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED Vs. HATISH KATARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 11058.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2592 of 2012 Defendant no. 1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 16.4.2012, Annexure P/5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohali, thereby closing evidence of defendant no. 1 -petitioner by court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that suit has been filed by respondent no. 1 ? plaintiff in collusion with defendants/respondents no. 2 and 3 and only one opportunity was granted to the petitioner after defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence and even for that one opportunity, defendant no. 1 took Dasti summons of a witness who was, however, not found available and could not be served. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner prayed that only one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner for its remaining evidence.

(3.) CONTENTION of counsel for the petitioner that defendant no. 1 ? petitioner was to lead evidence after defendants no. 2 and 3 had closed their evidence cannot be accepted because the trial court always fixed the case for evidence of all the defendants (including defendant no. 1 ? petitioner) and there is no order of the trial court to depict that defendant no. 1 ? petitioner ever even made any request to the trial court that it will lead its evidence after closing of evidence by defendants no. 2 and 3. Moreover, defendant no. 1 examined its witness DW1 Manoj Madan on 17.12.2010, on 5th opportunity for evidence of defendants whereas defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence on 3.4.2012, on 22nd opportunity for evidence of the defendants. Thus, even before defendants no. 2 and 3 closed their evidence, defendant no. 1 had started leading its evidence and in fact defendant no. 1 commenced its evidence even before defendants no. 2 and 3 commenced producing their evidence. So aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.