MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. PREM KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons mentioned above, which is duly supported by an affidavit, application is allowed and hearing of the petition is pre -poned from 07.12.2015 to today itself.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book.

(3.) From the perusal of the previous zimni orders, it is evident that the petitioner had submitted the list of witnesses for effecting the service. However, despite service, none appeared, the trial Court, in my view, ought not to have closed the evidence without resorting to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 12 CPC. In essence, the trial Court should have summoned them by issuing bailable warrants. Thus, no fault can be attributed to the petitioner -plaintiff in not completing the evidence and therefore, there was no occasion for closing the evidence. In view of what has been observed above, the impugned order dated 07.11.2014, Annexure P -6, is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to lead the evidence. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the witnesses, in accordance with law.