JATINDERPAL SINGH Vs. KASHMIRI LAL & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Phillaur, vide which the evidence of the plaintiffpetitioner was closed.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner had moved an application on 05.07.2017 for comparison of the handwriting of defendant -respondent No.2 whereupon notice was issued on the same for 20.7.2017, on which date, the application for comparison of handwriting of defendant-respondent No.2 i.e. Gulshan Kumar was allowed by the learned trial Court by categorically observing that opportunity was required to be given to the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his version. On the next date i.e. 3.8.2017, defendant-respondent No.2 did not appear whereupon the case was adjourned to 10.8.2017. On the said date, defendant-respondent No.2 Gulshan Kumar again did not appear and the case was adjourned to 30.8.2017 on which date again case was adjourned.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that in the circumstances, particularly when the learned trial Court in its order dated 20.7.2017 had categorically observed that an opportunity was required to be given to the plaintiff-petitioner to prove his version by examining the Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and since only two adjournments had been taken, that too on account of inability of Handwriting Expert to appear before the learned trial Court due to involvement before other courts as also in a marriage function and that too in the background of having presented the report through counsel though the same was not taken on record, then in that eventuality, the order passed by the learned trial Court closing the evidence of the plaintiff denying him the right to examine the Handwriting Expert was unduly harsh and at best one short adjournment could have been granted subject to payment of costs. Learned counsel prays for grant of one effective opportunity to examine the Handwriting Expert on such terms as to costs as deemed appropriate by this Court.