SATPAL SHARMA PUJARI Vs. CHAND PARKASH MAGHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE order under challenge, evidence of the petitioner- plaintiff was closed by order. Counsel states that on the date fixed, petitioner, on account of some gap of communication with his counsel failed to bring evidence in Court. He further states that for summoning of two witnesses, who are yet to be examined, he moved an application. He also deposited the diet money in the Court. Despite that no summon was issued to those witnesses. It has further been averred the suit of the petitioner is for recovery and if he is not allowed to conclude his evidence, he shall suffer an irreparable loss.

(2.) BY referring to above-mentioned fact, a prayer has been made that may be, subject to costs, one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. Prayer made has been vehemently opposed by Shri Jatinder Singla, who has put up appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 7.

(3.) THEIR Lordships of Supreme Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) L.Rs. and others v. Parmod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by L.Rs. and others, (2003)3 S.C.C. 272, in para 26 of the judgment had opined as under :-