MALKIAT SINGH Vs. CHAAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff's evidence has been closed by the impugned order dated 04th October, 2013 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka. The petitioner, who is the plaintiff before the trial Court had examined two witnesses. They were cross -examined by the defendant. The third witness for the plaintiff was a bound down witness and appeared in court. His examination -in -chief was recorded but his crossexamination was deferred on account of non -availability of the learned counsel for the defendants.

(2.) IT is admitted by Mr. Gautam that his client took ten adjournments for leading his remaining evidence and still failed to do so till the impugned order was passed closing evidence. He submits that one Mr. Roshan Lal Verma, Advocate -cum -Notary Public at Ferozepur and one Mahinder Singh whose examination -in -chief has already been recorded and whose cross - examination was deferred before the plaintiff's evidence was closed remain to be examined. It is submitted that Mr. Roshan Lal Verma is a material witness to the affidavit dated 13th February, 2009 whose evidence is necessary to prove delivery of possession to the plaintiff by the LRs of Jangir Singh, who was the original allottee to whom rights of ownership were transferred by the provincial Government. This document is stated to be valuable in establishing plaintiff's case, as urged by Mr. Gautam.

(3.) IN view of the fact that one witness remains partially crossexamined and two witnesses alone are required to be produced by the plaintiff although ten adjournments have been taken before and the trial Court, which has shown enough toleration and given sufficient accommodation to the plaintiff, but yet I feel that the interest of justice should not suffer and would be best served if one last opportunity is given to the plaintiff to produce Mr. Roshan Lal Verma and Mr. Mahinder Singh for which purpose the trial Court would now issue process to both the witnesses for them to be produced at the risk and responsibility of the plaintiff. This would be the last opportunity available on one date. This mercy would, however, remain subject to payment of costs of Rs.9,000/ - to be paid to defendant Nos.2 to 4 equally on the next date of hearing before the trial Court failing which the trial Court order would stand confirmed. Lest any person misuse this direction, the petitioner would bring separate drafts in the names of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and present them before the trial Court and hand them over to the Court or the counsel for the defendant Nos.2 to 4 against receipt. After payment of costs, the trial court would fix a date suitable to the plaintiff and the defendant for the recording of remaining evidence. In passing this order this court records that the trial court order suffers from no infirmity and is perfectly lawful but the demands on this court to do substantial justice to litigants even as a last ditch measure unfortunately precludes it from upholding the impugned order though there is nothing wrong with it.