HUKAM SINGH Vs. JODH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the Court in a civil trial obliged under O. XVII, R. 3, Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the lapse of a litigant in case it cannot ? and justifiably will not decide the case there end then, the same day. is the precedent broiled question which requires to be settled in this petition.

(2.) It arises in this manner; The dispute between the parties pertained to the estate of one Punjab Kaur. The respondents herein filed an application under Section 372. of the Indian Succession Act, before the Sub-Judge Ist Class, Bassi, who had the necessary powers to entertain it, The petitioner herein was arrayed as a respondent. It appears that the applicants-respondent. had concluded their evidence and the case was at the stage of the evidence of the petitioner. On the adjourned date on 11-8-19 3, the trial Court closed the evidence of the petitioner under O. XVII, R. 3, Civil Procedure code, and adjourned the case further to 22-B-1983 to rebuttal and arguments. Such order was passed on the view that the petitioner had availed six dates for evidence and had not concluded it as also that he was not even present in Court to make statement in support of hie case. From such conduct. the trial Court recorded the opinion that the petitioner had failed to take further steps for the progress of the case and thus ultimately it had to close his evidence. The said order is now under challenge.

(3.) The matter was placed at the motion stage before B. S: Yadav, J. The Hon'ble Judge finding the petitioner's counsel relying upon State of Punjab v. R:' a Kishan (1978) 80 Pun LR 454 and the respondents' counsel upon Ishwar Dutt v. Smt. Dilbhari (1979) 81 Pun LR 35 in which the correctness of the aforesaid case of Radha Kishan. was doubted, admitted the case to a Division Bench. And this is how the matter has been placed before us.