MOHINDER SINGH Vs. TULSI DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 23.4.1987 whereby the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal closed the evidence of the defendant-petitioner under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code').

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff- respondent closed his evidence on 26.4.1987 and the case was adjourned by the trial Court for the evidence of the petitioner on 18.7.1986. On that date, however, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned for proper orders to 25.7.1986. On that date by the order of the Presiding Officer the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner for 11.9.1986. On 11.9.1986 inspite of the fact that the witnesses were summoned none of them was served and the report was that they were not living in the village. The case served and the report was that they were not living in the village. The case was therefore, adjourned to 2.12.1986. On that date, according to the petitioner, the lawyers were on strike and another counsel appeared as proxy for his counsel and the case was adjourned to 7.2.1987 for his evidence. However, the learned counsel for the respondent points out that the lawyers were not on strike on that date and the case had been adjourned to 7.1.1987 in the presence of the counsel for the respondent. It is not necessary to resolve this part of the controversy.

(3.) It is, however, the admitted position that on 7.2.1987 the lawyers were on strike. Therefore, no evidence on behalf of the petitioner could be produced and the case was adjourned to 23.4.1987 in the absence of their counsel. The case of the petitioner is that he did not get knowledge through his counsel for the fact that the case had been adjourned to 23.4.1987. It was on that date that the impugned order was passed closing the evidence of the petitioner under Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code.