RAJ RANI Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated November 25, 1986 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Ajnala whereby evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the Court.

(2.) RAJ Rani and others filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. one lac as indigent persons. This amount was claimed as compensation under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act and General Law of Torts. Sohan Singh and others, defendants, were alleged to have committed murder of Taj Massih and Varinder Pal, his son. The plaintiffs are legal heirs of the two deceased.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the order as referred to above, there is no indication as to whether Dr. Jaswant Singh was served and did not appear or was not served. It is also not clear as to whether requisite process-fee etc., was paid by the plaintiffs for summoning Dr. Jaswant Singh for November 25, 1986. The ground on which evidence of the plaintiff has been closed is to the effect that the case was old one and there was no justification for further adjournment of the case. No doubt, if the party commits any breach in the performance of his duty in the matter of summoning witnesses, the fault would continue to exist if so ordered by the Court in the proceedings and if subsequently any similar fault is again committed, the court would be justified in passing an order adverse to the said party. In the present case, it is not clear from the impugned order as to whether non-appearance of Dr. Jaswant Singh on November 25, 1986 was on account of any fault committed by the plaintiffs and thus the court was not justified in closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. While accepting the revision, the order of the trial Court dated November 25, 1986 is set aside. One more opportunity would be allowed to the plaintiff to produce Dr. Jaswant Singh subject to payment of Rs. 100/- as costs by the plaintiffs to the defendants in the trial Court. It is stated that in the trial Court even the defendants have also led evidence and the case is ripe. That being the position, it is further directed that after the evidence of Dr. Jaswant Singh is recorded an opportunity would be given to the defendants to lead evidence in defence, if any. Petition accepted.