SURJIT SINGH Vs. AJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been directed against the order dated the 19th November, 1974, passed by learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Jullundur, whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts relevant for decision of this petition are that the petitioner was defendant in the suit. He entered defence on 20th July, 1974, when the plaintiff-respondent closed the evidence. The suit was fixed for evidence to be produced by the petitioner on 16th August, 1974, when it was adjourned to 19th September, 1974. It was again adjourned to 5th October, 1974, as the Ahlmad had not issued processes for summoning the witnesses in time. One witness was present on 5th October, 1974 but he was not examined because he had not brought some record and the suit was adjourned to 19th November, 1974, and he was bound down for the said date. On an application moved by the petitioner for examination of an official of the Income Tax Department at Calcutta Mr. R.S. Aggarwal, Advocate, had been appointed as Commissioner to record his statement at Calcutta. On 19th November, 1974, no witness of the petitioner had turned up, nor summoned by him for that date. Therefore, the learned Senior Sub-Judge closed his evidence and adjourned the case to 26th November, 1974 for recording his (petitioner's) statement. It is the said order dated 19th November, 1974, which has been challenged in this revision.

(3.) When the suit was adjourned by the learned Subordinate Judge from 19th November, 1974 to 26th November, 1974, for the statement of the petitioner, he could have easily allowed the petitioner to produce his witnesses on his own responsibility on that day. Therefore, I feel that there was no justification for closure of the evidence of the petitioner on 19th November, 1974. The witness who turned up on 5th October, 1974 was bound down by the Court to appear on 19th November, 1974. When he did not appear on that day i.e. on 19th November, 1974, it was for the Court to issue coercive process against him and the petitioner could not be blamed for his non-appearance. Mr. Bhagirath Dass says that the witness who was present on 5th October, 1974 was Mohinder Singh Lambardar. He further gives an undertaking that Mohinder Singh Lambardar as well as Patwari would be required to be summoned through the processes of Court and the petitioner would produce the other witnesses, if any, on his own responsibility and would not demand processes for any other witness. He, however, adds that the official of the Income-Tax Department would be examined by the Commissioner at Calcutta. Since the learned Subordinate Judge appears to have committed illegality or at least irregularity of procedure in closing the evidence of the petitioner, because as, indicated above, Mohinder Singh Lambardar who had been bound down for 19th November, 1974, should have been summoned by the Court and the petitioner could not be held liable for his non-appearance, the impugned order cannot be upheld and this revision petition must succeed.