PACCA AHRITIA ASSOCIATION Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is reported that service has not been effected on respondent 1 and 2. Their address is care of respondent No. 3.

(2.) The plaintiff-petitioner has impugned the order of the trial Court, dated May 21, 1976, whereby he closed the plaintiff's case qua the examination of three witnesses, i.e. the Secretary and Accountant of the Co-operative Society and Hans Raj on the ground that the plaintiff did not put in the process fee for the issue of summonses or fee for the issue of warrants to procure their attendance. After saying that the evidence of the plaintiff regarding those three witnesses is closed, the trial Court forthwith adjourned the case for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff. The trial Court had the sole discretion to grant or refuse adjournment under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). The Court can also refuse to issue process for a witness for whom no process has either been obtained by a party or for producing whom an under-taking has been given and no steps are taken thereafter, but when the case was being adjourned for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff, the trial Court could not, in my opinion, say that even if the three witnesses in question are produced on the next hearing they would not be examined. It could refuse the adjournment for their examination but having granted the adjournment, it could not say that the plaintiff's evidence qua them is closed.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, I allow this revision petition and set aside the order dated May 21, 1976, by which the trial Court closed the evidence of the plaintiff regarding Hans Raj (P.W.) and the Secretary and Accountant of the Co-operative Society. The plaintiff can produce them at their own risk and responsibility on any date of hearing till his evidence is closed either by the order of the trial Court or otherwise. Since the suit is of 1972, the trial Court is directed to proceed with it as expeditiously as possible. The trial Court should fix consecutive dates for recording statements of the plaintiff's witnesses and will not grant unnecessary or unjustified adjournments to the parties. Because the proceedings in the trial Court had been stayed by the Motion Bench, I direct that the parties may appear before the trial Court on November 24, 1976, on which date the Court below will fix the date or dates for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff.