HARI CHAND Vs. PANKAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A perusal of the impugned order vide which the trial court closed the evidence of the petitioners, shows that they could not produce their complete evidence, though the case remained pending for the purpose, for an exceptionally long period of about 7 years. They even did not file list of witnesses. It is further in the order that before closing evidence, court had called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to disclose the name of the witness who yet remained to be examined, but he failed to name any. The impugned order is self-contained and does not call for any interference. The court had granted more than the required number of adjournments, for the purpose. As, inspite of that, the petitioners could not complete their evidence, court was left with no option but to close it, by order.