BABU RAM KAUSHIK Vs. JAGBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gohana, whereby, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed by Court order.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.06.2010 against defendant-respondent No. 1. Written statement to the suit was filed and issues were framed. Petitioner examined PW-1-Ved Pal, PW-2 Babu Ram and examined himself on 06.03.2013. Thereafter, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar and PW-4 Amarjit Singh were examined, who are the attesting witnesses to the agreement to sell and the receipt on 10.01.2014. However, the evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 20.12.2016 by the Court, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-petitioner has already tendered the affidavits of PWs, namely, Ravinder Kumar and Amarjit and only these two witnesses are to be cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. Plaintiff-petitioner had already led his evidence and has also tendered the documents. The case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff and PWs, namely, Babu Ram and Ravinder were also present. Counsel for the defendants sought a date as he was not feeling well and their cross-examination was deferred on his request. Learned counsel also submits that on two consecutive dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned. When the case was fixed for evidence, two applications were moved by defendant No. 2 for sending the stamp papers to the printing press, Nasik and for amendment of written statement but no arguments were advanced by defendant No. 2 on these applications. Learned counsel also submits that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and only one effective opportunity is required for conclusion of his evidence.