CHAMAN LAL Vs. ROOP RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel from the both sides.

(2.) IT appears from the material before me that at the stage of leading evidence, the evidence of the revision -applicants came to be closed by the trial Court's order dated 8.12.1994. The reasons assigned for that order indicate that about ten opportunities had been granted to lead evidence but had not been properly availed. Copy of the zimni orders shows that the witness Gulshan Kumar, Labour Inspector did not attend the Court despite service of the summons and coercive method for securing his presence had to be adopted by issuing bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 2,000/ - with one surety, so as to keep him present in the Court on 8.12.1994. On 8.12.1994, it was found that the said witness was not present. Therefore, under those circumstances, ultimately the trial Court closed the side of the present petitioners. In the set of circumstances obviously, the absence of the witness cannot be attributed to the default on the part of the revision -petitioners. He had taken all necessary steps to serve the summons on the witness Gulshan Kumar, a Labour Inspector. I would also like to say that when the case is in the trial Court, it is the trial Court only where the parties have and should have sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, and the party should not be penalised if the witness did not attend despite the steps taken by the parties to secure his attendance. Too a rigid approach in such matter of recording the evidence sometimes leads to harsh result; and also sometimes lengthens the time of litigation for various reasons. Aggrieved party then raises such question by way of a revision or in the first Appellate Court, and, if successful, the matter goes back to the trial Court for affording opportunity to the parties. That is how the rigid approach in the matter of procedure while recording the evidence in the trial Court results into ultimate delaying disposal, and thereby frustrating the very object of the procedural laws.

(3.) SUBJECT to the payment of costs Rs. 100/ - to be paid in the trial Court by or before the next date of hearing in the trial Court. The revision petitioners are hereby afforded an opportunity to lead evidence of Gulshan Kumar, Labour Inspector and one of the petitioners. It is further directed that the evidence of the present petitioners shall be led and closed by or before May 20, 1995.