BALKAR SINGH Vs. DIDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by order.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an old man of 80 years of age. He has filed the suit for specific performance of the contract. Earlier his suit was decreed ex parte. The said ex parte decree was set aside and the case was listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 23.01.2015. He contended that the petitioner has himself stepped into the witness box and has also examined the attesting witness of the agreement. Now, he wants to examine the scribe. The scribe of the agreement was a summoned witness. His diet money was deposited. But, he could not appear due to marriage of his son. Thus, he contended that the petitioner was not at fault. One opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to produce the evidence. No prejudice will be caused to the opposite party, rather the denial thereof will result in a serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. He contended that the Court is competent to grant the adequate opportunities in the interest of justice. He relied upon cases Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, 2005 3 RCR(Civ) 530, Manohar Singh Vs. D.S.Sharma & Anr., 2009 4 RCR(Civ) 932, Paramjit Kaur and another Vs. Sukhraj Kaur and others, 2014 175 PunLR 629, Kulwinder Singh Vs. Balkar Singh and others,2014 175 PunLR 590 and Mahant Jagmohan Singh Vs. Mahant Karamjit Singh, 2013 4 RCR(Civ) 323.

(3.) I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.