HAR SINGH Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th September 1973 of the trial Court, whereby it adjourned the hearing of the case on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs by the defendant and further directed him to produce his evidence on the adjourned date on his own responsibility.

(2.) The facts as gleaned from the record are that the plaintiff closed his evidence on 20th July, 1973 and the case was adjourned to 9th August, 1973 for the defence evidence. The Court passed an order on 4th August, 1973 that the defendant witnesses be summoned on deposit of procees-fee, and diet money. The defendant deposited process-fee, and diet money. The defendant deposited proceess-fee, as also the diet money, on 4th August, 1973. Apparently the needful was done only few days before the date fixed for hearing, so the necessary summons had not been issued to the witnesses and on 9th August, 1973 the Court adjourned the case to 6th September, 1973 directing the defendant to produce his evidence on that date on his own responsibility. On the adjourned date also no witness of the defence was present and the Court passed the following short order which has been impugned in this revision petition.

(3.) I am of the opinion that so long as a party is prepared to deposit the requisite process-fee and the diet money for summoning of its witnesses, it is the duty of the Court to extend its assistance in securing the presence of the witnesses and it is not open to the Court to direct such a party to bring its evidence on its own responsibility at the very first date given for the production of its evidence. It is only in the event where the party does not deposit the process-fee and the diet money and thus does not seek the assistance of the Court and then fails to adduce its evidence on its own as well as that it would be open to the Court, after it is satisfied that the evidence had not been produced by the concerned party either on account of the delaying tactics or for some other clever design, to either close the evidence or give another opportunity on payment of costs. In the present case the Court was not right in passing the impugned order whereby it imposed costs on the defendant and also fixed on him the responsibility of producing his witnesses. Since in doing so the Court acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the impugned order is, therefore, quashed and the Court below is directed to extend its assistance to the defendant in summoning his witnesses, so long as the defendant continues to deposit process-fee and the diet money. No order as to costs.