DALIP KUMAR Vs. BAKSHISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Action impugned herein is the order dated 28.04.2017 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad vide which evidence of the plaintiff was closed by observing that the plaintiff could not lead evidence despite 9 opportunities including 6 last opportunities.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance.

(3.) On 23.01.2017, 14.02.2017, 28.02.2017, no evidence of the plaintiff was present and the case was adjourned for plaintiff evidence at his own responsibility and last opportunity was observed in the order dated 28.02.2017. On 14.03.2017, PW Dalip Kumar was present and he tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief as PW1. The case was entrusted to Court Commissioner for recording cross examination of the witness. The file was returned by the Court Commissioner along with his certificate that the cross examination of PW 1 was deferred as Court time was over. The case was adjourned to 22.03.2017 for cross examination of PW 1 and for remaining evidence of the plaintiff at his own responsibility. In the order itself, it was endorsed that the addresses of Gulshan and Deepak were incomplete and Hanuman was served. On 22.03.2017, PW 1 was present in the Court. Another witness namely Hanuman was present and he tendered his affidavit in examination-in-chief as PW 2. The case was entrusted to Court Commissioner for recording cross examination of the witnesses. The Court Commissioner returned the file after recording cross examination of PW 1 and PW 2 respectively along with his certificate. No other PW was present and the case was adjourned to 31.03.2017 for remaining evidence of the plaintiff at his own responsibility with an endorsement of last opportunity. In the order itself, it was endorsed that summons were issued to three witnesses. The summons issued to Gulshan and Deepak were not received back. However Sunil remained un-served. On the adjourned date i.e. 31.03.2017, no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 10.04.2017 for plaintiff evidence at his own responsibility with an endorsement of last opportunity. The addresses of Gulshan and Deepak were endorsed to be incomplete and Sunil was un-served. On 10.04.2017, no PW was present. Summoned witnesses i.e. Gulshan and Deepak were allegedly refused to receive the summons, however, Sunil was served. The case was adjourned to 21.04.2017. The same status remained in respect of service of three summoned witnesses namely Deepak, Gulshan and Sunil. Gulshan and Deepak alleged to have refused the summons, however, Sunil was duly served. On the adjourned date i.e. 28.04.2017, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by observing that it was the 9th opportunity for the plaintiff evidence.