RAMU GUPTA Vs. HARPREET KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Contitution of India for setting aside order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure P-2), whereby, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by Court order.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell executed in his favour by respondent No.1-Harpreet Kaur. The issues were framed on 15.07.2015 and thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff but no evidence was given by the plaintiff. A request was made by the petitioner to have more time to conclude his evidence but the request was not accepted and ultimately the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order dated 30.11.2016.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two PWs tendered their affidavits in evidence on 10.08.2015 by way of examination-in-chief. Only the cross-examination of said two witnesses was necessary, for which, only one effective date was required. Learned counsel also submits that the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court order, whereas, his witnesses were present on 21.01.2016, 05.02.2016 as well as on 18.03.2016 but the date was sought by counsel for the respondent-defendants. Learned counsel also submits that it has wrongly been mentioned in the impugned order that adequate opportunities were granted to the petitioner to conclude his evidence. It has also been mentioned that total 14 effective opportunities were granted to conclude evidence, whereas, even as per zimni orders, which are on record, it is clear that only on two occasions, the PWs were not present before the trial Court as there were chances of compromise between the parties. Some of the dates were sought by the defendants and it cannot be said from a perusal of zimni orders that all dates were sought by the plaintiff-petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that for cross-examination of two PWs, only one effective opportunity is required.