RAVINDER NATH Vs. MADAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for revision of the order of the court of Shri R. C. Sharma, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, dated November 7, 1975, refusing to grant further adjournment to the defendant-petitioner for production of the witnesses and purporting to close his case under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure and adjourning the suit for final arguments to November 11, 1975. Mr. R. S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner relying on my judgment in Smt. Kakhri and others v. Munshi Ram and others,1967 PunLR 149 has submitted that the order of the trial court is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 17 of the Code could be invoked only if the trial court wanted to proceed to decide the suit forthwith.

(2.) The argument is that inasmuch as the trial court did not choose to do so and adjourned the case for arguments to November 11, 1975, the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 have no application to the case. Mr. Dhillon is no doubt correct that if the learned Subordinate Judge wanted to proceed under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code, he had to decide the suit forthwith that is on November 7, 1975, and could not have adjourned it. It, however, appears to me that the learned Subordinate Judge has erroneously made reference to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code in respect of the whole order. He has clearly stated in the order under revision that the case had been lingering on for evidence of the defendant for more than a year, and that it would not be in the interest of justice to grant any further adjournment to the defendant for the production of his witnesses. No fault can be found with this part of the order as granting or refusing to grant an adjournment in a case (for production of witnesses) under Order 17 Rule 1 is within the discretion of the court. But if the case not being proceeded with under Order 17 Rule 3 and is not being decided forthwith, the evidence of the party at fault cannot be closed, and the opportunity available to him to produce his witnesses on the next date of hearing if he can somehow bring them cannot be denied to him. In that view of the matter I cannot possibly sustain the order of the learned Subordinate Judge closing the evidence of the defendant under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code. That part of the order is, therefore, set aside. The order refusing to grant the defendant any further adjournment for the production of his witnesses is upheld. The result is that if the defendant arranges to produce his witnesses before the trial court on the next hearing, the trial court may in exercise of its discretion allow them to be examined. If the defendant makes an application for further adjournment of the case, it would be within the discretion of the trial court to allow it or not. With these observations the petition for revision is allowed, the order closing the defendant's evidence is set-aside and the parties are directed to appear before the trial court on September 14, 1976, on which date the court will proceed with the suit in accordance with law in the light of the observation herein made. The parties are left to bear their own costs.