MOHINDER PRAKASH Vs. HAQIQ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the defendant-respondent, issues were framed on July 19, 1974, and the case was adjourned for the evidence of the plaintiff to September 9, 1974 On the said first date fixed for plaintiff's evidence, no witness of the plaintiff was either summoned or otherwise present in Court. The proper course for the trial Court in those circumstances would have been to call the plaintiff in the witness-box if he desired to appear and then to direct the defendant to enter on his defence. There was no earthly reason why another opportunity should have been allowed to the plaintiff unless the Court was satisfied on the basis of an affidavit produced before it or on the basis of the statement of the plaintiff that there were some special circumstances justifying adjournment of the case on payment of costs. The trial Court seems to have adjourned the case as a matter of routine though there was no reason for doing so. It is orders of this type that delay the disposal of cases in the trial Court.

(2.) ON November 6, 1974, the second date fixed for plaintiff's evidence, the coats of adjournment were paid by the plaintiff but no evidence was recorded. One Moti Ram delivered the file which had been summoned from him. The Naib tahsildar (who must have been summoned for that date) was not present. The order of the trial Court recorded on that date does not at all show why the Naib tahsildar was not present. The learned Subordinate Judge should have mentioned in the order whether the witness had been summoned and if so whether he had been served or not; and if he had been summoned within time and not served, the reason for service not having been effected on him. Once again, the Court below seems to have adjourned the case to January 13, 1975, for summoning the Naib Tahsildar without going into the relevant matters on the basis of which he could have decided whether further adjournment should or should not be allowed. On January 13, 1975, one witness of the plaintiff was present and was examined. No other witness was present and the case was adjourned to March 19, 1975. The order of the Court does not show whether the plaintiff had filed his list of witnesses before entering on his evidence or not. The order should normally have disclosed as to whether the remaining witnesses for whom the case was being adjourned to March 19, 1975, had been summoned or not and why those witnesses were not present on that date and on the previous dates. Though the order does not show that Chander Bhan, naib Tahsil-dar, was absent in spite of service, it can be presumed that this must be the situation because the order recorded by Shri B. R. Vohra, learned subordinate Judge, states that the said Naib Tahsildar be summoned through bailable warrant for the next date.

(3.) IT was on March 19, 1975, that the case was then taken up. No evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was present. The plaintiff himself was absent. Of course, he was represented by his counsel. The learned Subordinate Judge noticed in his order of that date that the plaintiff had not filed the process fee for the issue of bailable warrant to the Naib Tahsildar and he had not summoned any witness. He, therefore, held that there was no justification in giving any other opportunity to the plaintiff and closed his evidence. The case was then adjourned to May 5, 1975, for the evidence of the defendant.