LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. KIMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment dated 14/2/2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which the case has been remanded to the trial Court with a direction to decide it afresh. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that he is the owner of land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas, situated in the revenue estate of village Taraf Karabara. The suit land was acquired by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust for the development scheme of Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana. Since the plaintiff's land was acquired, he became a `local displaced person'. He deposited a sum of Rs. 500/-vide receipt dated 19.5.1976 to claim allotment of plot being `local displaced person'. The Improvement Trust had allotted plots to several similarly placed persons in Sarabha Nagar and Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana under the development scheme of the Trust. Inspite of several representations made by the plaintiff and the promises made by the Trust, it failed to allot any plot to the plaintiff. Hence the suit was filed.

(2.) Suit was contested by the Improvement Trust on the ground that the plaintiff had no locus-standi and the Trust had called the plaintiff vide letters No. 11655 dated 16.12.1996 and 1880 dated 3.7.1997, but he did not come present to prove his claim. Receipt of Rs. 500/- on 19.5.1976 has been admitted. It is pleaded that the Department of Local Government of Punjab has laid down the procedure of allotment of alternative plots to `local displaced persons` vide letter memo No. 5/24/97-32 II/2746 dated 2.3.1997. After settling the issues and taking the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff did not produce any evidence to prove his case. It was observed that inspite of granting 13 opportunities, including some opportunities with costs, the plaintiff had failed to produce any witness in the Court and accordingly the evidence was closed by order of the Court.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed the appeal before the First Appellate Court taking the plea that the Improvement Trust had not considered plaintiff's case for allotment of alternate plot though other similarly situated persons have already been allotted the plots. It was further pleaded that plaintiff did not get reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. It is argued that the plaintiff-appellant had deposited diet money for summoning the concerned Clerk of the Improvement Trust who was served but did not turn up. Therefore, he was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants vide order dated 19.3.1999 by the trial Court. The witness did not appear inspite of having been summoned through bailable warrants and the learned trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit under Order 17 Rule 3CPC. It is, therefore, argued that once the witness had been summoned through the process of Court, the learned trial Court should not have closed the evidence of the plaintiff and the presence of the witness should have been secured by coercive method.