HARDEEP SINGH Vs. BUTA SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, defendant No.3 Hardeep Singh has assailed order dated 10.02.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby closing evidence of defendant No.3 by Court order. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that only two more opportunities may be granted to the petitioner for his remaining evidence at own responsibility although assistance of the Court for summoning the witnesses, being official witnesses, may also be granted. It is submitted that summons of witness Balbir Singh, Clerk, Record Keeper issued by the trial Court were received with the report of refusal. The said witness is to produce record of sale deed. Thereafter Sub-Registrar is to be examined to prove the sale deed.

(2.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. The suit is of January 1994 i.e. 18 years old. However, as per zimni orders of the trial Court as reproduced in paragraph 3 of the revision petition, evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff was closed on 06.12.2011 and thereafter in all six opportunities were granted to defendant No.3 till 10.02.1992 for his evidence by granting short adjournments. Defendant No.3 summoned Clerk from the office of Sub- Registrar with some record. The witness refused to accept the summons as mentioned in impugned order dated 10.02.2012. However, the trial Court closed the evidence of defendant No.3 by Court order on the same date. Nevertheless the trial Court ordered issuance of bailable warrant of the said Clerk Balbir Singh requiring him to show cause why proceedings be not initiated against him for refusing to receive the summons. Counsel for the petitioner states that the said witness Balbir Singh has not yet appeared in the trial Court and again the case is fixed for today in the trial Court for enforcing presence of this witness although for a different purpose. In my considered opinion, ends of justice would be met if prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is accepted, subject to payment of some cost. It may be noticed that the aforesaid witness was not summoned when the case was fixed for evidence of defendant No.3 for first time but was sought to be summoned after availing four opportunities, although of short duration.

(3.) I intend to dispose of this revision petition without issuing notice to respondent No.1-plaintiff so as to avoid further delay in disposal of the suit and also to save the plaintiff of the expenses he may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition, if notice thereof is issued to him.