SURJAN Vs. RAGHU NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a typical example of the cases which are delayed because of the hasty orders passed by the trial Courts. This suit was instituted in the year 1973 and because of the impugned order, its trial was stayed by this Court in the year 1974.

(2.) The facts leading to this petition are that the plaintiffs evidence in the suit was closed on August 18, 1975 and September 2, 1975 was fixed for defendants evidence. The defendants submitted the application for the summoning of their witnesses on September 2, 1975. Out of 8/0 witnesses summoned, one was the Secretary of the Municipal Committee. The trial Court passed an order to summon all the witnesses except the Secretary, Municipal Committee respecting whom it was stated that he be summoned after certified copy of the document sought to be proved by him is placed on the record. Two witnesses were only served for September 20, 1975. The statement of one of them was recorded and the statement of the other witnesses could not be recorded as the concerned file had not been received. Because the defendants had failed to make the application within the prescribed time, they were burdened with Rs. 15 as costs of the adjournment and the case was adjourned to October 27, 1975 for the remaining evidence. The statements of 5 witnesses were recorded on October 27, 1975. With respact to Dal Chand witness, the report was that he could not be served having gone out of station. As regards the Secretary of the Municipal Committee, the defendants made the application along with a certified copy of the document on October 23, 1975 for summoning this witness and necessary order was passed there on October 24, 1975. The summons were not issued to this witness as the time was not sufficient for effecting service upon him. The defendants made a request on October 27, 1975 for an adjournment to examine the remaining witnesses but by the impugned order their evidence was closed under Order 17 rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved by that order the defendants have come up in this revision petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defendants were not at fault and their evidence has been closed illegally by the trial Court. So far as Dal Chand witness is concerned, there was no reason to deny an opportunity for summoning that witness as he could not be served for no fault of the defendants. Regarding the summoning of the Secretary, Municipal Committee, it can be said that the defendants had committed a default in not producing the certified copy of the document earlier but that by itsef would not warrant the resort to the drastic provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it has been time and again held by this Court that the parties should be given fullest opportunity to produce their evidence at the trial Stage. If the defendants had committed a default, the other party could be compensated with costs for the adjournment.