BANK OF BARODA Vs. S M TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the respondent in the year 1985. The plaintiff was afforded as many as 23 opportunities to produce and conclude its evidence, but it failed to do so. On March 3, 1993 no witness of the plaintiff came present and the trial Court after noticing some facts, closed the plaintiff's evidence under Order 17, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. Aggrieved by the said order the plaintiff has filed the present revision.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I hardly find any justification to grant any further opportunity to the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff has failed to conclude its evidence though a period of more than eight years has passed and a large number of opportunities have been granted to it for the purpose. However, in the interest of justice, I allow this revision to a limited extent that the petitioner shall be afforded one effective opportunity to produce its entire evidence at its own risk and responsibility on a date to be fixed by the trial Court in the month of April, 1994 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. The costs shall be paid by the plaintiff to the contesting defendant/defendants proportionately through a crossed demand draft. It is made clear that it will be open to the plaintiff- bank to recover the amount of costs from its officer/officers who may be found negligent in not producing the evidence during the last eight years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner who himself is a counsel for the plaintiff in the trial Court informed that the suit is fixed for today and he would inform the trial Court of the order passed so that a date is fixed for plaintiff's evidence in the month of April, 1994.