HAWA SINGH Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order dated 22.11.1994, evidence of the plaintiff -petitioner was ordered to be closed, primarily on the ground that it was an old case and the petitioner had failed to produce his evidence in spite of availing a number of opportunities.

(2.) I have perused the zimmy orders which have been reproduced in the grounds of revision. Most of the evidence of the petitioner has been produced and only two witnesses remain to be examined by him i..e the petitioner himself and one Brick Kiln owner or his Clerk along with record. On the two previous dates of hearing, petitioner had deposited the process fee and taken dasti summons as well. Counsel for the petitioner states that the Brick Kiln owner or his Clerk, who has to come with the record, is not amenable to the influence of the petitioner and cannot be produced by him at his own responsibility. The petitioner had been depositing the process fee and taking dasti summons but service could not be effected. Keeping in view the circumstances aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to grant another opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence.