RAKESH KHANNA Vs. MOHINI KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Suit No. 300/RT of 17.04.2012 that has been filed by the petitioners against the respondents has been pending in the trial Court, which is for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of this case, the evidence of the petitioners, herein, was closed by order vide order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure P4). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in the order dated 14.10.2013, that was passed by the trial Court, Harcharan Singh and Narender Jham witnesses were served and they were ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants of arrest in the sum of Rs. 5,000/ - and a surety in the like amount for the next date i.e. 15.11.2013. He further contended that on the latter date, warrants/notice (wrongly written as notice) issued to Harcharan Singh and Narender Jham of the petitioners were received back unserved. He further contended that in this order dated 15.11.2013, no further date has been mentioned, meaning thereby, that it was not mentioned as to for which date, this suit is being adjourned.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further contended that file was taken up on 22.11.2013 and the evidence of the petitioners was closed by order by holding that since he has availed many opportunities including last opportunity and despite that he failed to bring his evidence, same is, hereby, closed by order.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that when once warrants of arrest (bailable) had been issued to Harcharan Singh and Narender Jham, that order should have been taken to logical conclusion by the trial Court which implied that these witnesses should have been coerced to appear before the trial Court and the petitioners were not under obligation to produce them and they were simply to pay the warrant fee.