HARDEEP SINGH Vs. GURSHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 27.5.2016 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby, the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by the order of Court.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,03,806/- against the respondent/defendant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Written statement to the suit was filed and thereafter issues were framed. The petitioner-plaintiff adduced his evidence on 7.1.2016 and thereafter he tendered his evidence on 27.1.2016 and was cross-examined on 23.2.2016. He could not conclude his evidence despite two opportunities given to him and his evidence was ultimately closed by the order of Court on 27.5.2016 on the ground that he was given various opportunities but he could not adduce his entire evidence. Order dated 27.5.2016, whereby the evidence of petitioner-plaintiff has been closed by the order of the Court, is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the first opportunity was given to the petitioner-plaintiff on 7.1.2016 and thereafter he tendered his evidence on 27.1.2016 and was cross-examined on 23.2.2016. Learned counsel further contends that on 27.5.2016, the petitioner-plaintiff and his witness were present before the trial Court but still their evidence was closed by the order of the Court and it could not come to their notice. Thereafter on 1.8.2016, the petitioner-plaintiff along with the witness came to the trial Court and on that date it came to his knowledge that his evidence has already been closed by the order of Court on 27.5.2016. The petitioner-plaintiff made an application on 17.8.2016 for permission to produce material witness before the trial Court but the same was also dismissed on 22.8.2016. Learned counsel also contends that even an appeal filed by the petitioner-plaintiff against order dated 22.8.2016 was subsequently withdrawn on 27.9.2016 as the remedy of revision was available. At the end, learned counsel submits that PW-2 Hari Singh is the material witness in the case and his evidence is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit for recovery and one effective opportunity be granted to the petitioner so that he may conclude his evidence on one date.