AMANJOT SINGH Vs. HARVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 4.1.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by Court order.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent- Harvinder Singh filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 23.7.2005 executed by the defendant-petitioner being attorney of Smt. Sukhvarsha-respondent No.2 regarding plot in dispute. Said suit was contested by the petitioner-defendant by filing written statement. Issues were framed. The plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence in the case on 15.2015. The case was thereafter fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioner. On 4.1.2017, neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present in the Court, whereas, defendant-witness, namely, Smt. Shashi Bala was present. Last opportunity was granted to conclude the evidence on the date fixed but in the absence of the petitioner or his counsel, the statement of witness could not be recorded and his evidence was closed vide impugned order dated 4.1.2017 and the case was adjourned to 11.1.2017 for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. On 11.1.2017, the Presiding Officer was on leave and, as such, the case was taken up on 10.1.2017 and was adjourned for 17.1.2017. The petitioner-defendant moved an application for recalling of order dated 4.1.2017 but the same was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while passing impugned order dated 4.1.2017, it has simply been mentioned that last opportunity was granted to the petitioner-defendant to conclude his evidence but he was not interested in examining DW- Smt. Shashi Bala or any other witness and, therefore, his evidence was closed. No reason whatsoever has been recorded in the order. The defendant-petitioner remained present in the Court on all dates and lapse, if any, was only on the date when impugned order was passed. There was no intention to remain absent when the defendant witness was present. While dismissing the application for recalling of order dated 4.1.2017, the trial Court has observed that his evidence has been closed by order of the Court after affording sufficient opportunities and no further opportunity was justified. At the most, the petitioner-defendant could be proceeded ex parte. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner-defendant may be granted one opportunity to examine Shashi Bala, who was present in the Court as the same is necessary for just decision of the case. Learned counsel also submits that the defendant-petitioner summoned Shri Sukhjinder Singh, Hand Writing and Finger Print Expert in support of his case. The petitioner himself also remains to be examined in the case and wants to examine expert witness in support of the case. Learned counsel also submits that no prejudice is going to be caused to the other party and he is ready to compensate the other party for the delay, if any.