SWARAN SINGH Vs. BACHAI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Swaran Singh filed a suit or declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of a plot measuring 110 Square Yards. In view of the registered sale deed dated 17.7.1975 executed by Vihwa Nath in his favour as fully detailed in the head note of the plaint. The plaintiff led some evidence and ultimately closed his evidence on 16.8.1994 in the affirmative except the statement of P.W. Inderjit Lakra, a Clerk of Central Bank of India, Amritsar. On that very day the trial Court came a to the conclusion that statement of Shri Inderjit Lakra cannot be recorded and the order was passed by the Senior Sub-Judge, Amritsar, inadvertently. The trial Court also noticed that plaintiff had closed his evidence on two occasions and, therefore, there is no occasion to record his statement as well. Hence this revision petition at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order I find that the trial Court treated the earlier order precisely as one passed in advertently. It is, however, evident from the impugned order itself that not only once but on more than one occasion the learned Senior Sub Judge had accepted the request of the plaintiff to summon the Clerk of Central Bank of India, Amritsar, with record. Not only this, the Clerk of the said Bank who was summoned, came present in Court on two occasions but did not bring the records i.e. the sale deed vide which the plaintiff purchased the plot in dispute. Further the trial Court did not record the statement of the plaintiff and it is not clear from the order as to why the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. It is by now a settled law that procedure is hand-made of justice and justice should not be denied on technicalities. The plaintiff only wants to examine himself and Shri Inderjit Lakra, an employee of the Central Bank of India, Amritsar. He has filed a suit on the strength of the sale deed. The sale deed is perhaps, lying with the said Bank and the plaintiff wanted to produce the same through this witness.

(3.) In view of the above and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the learned trial Court has acted illegally and committed material irregularity in passing the impugned order. The order under revision is consequently set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The plaintiff shall, however, not be granted more than two effective opportunities under any circumstance for the purpose of examining himself and his witness Shri Inderjit Lakra or any other witness in place of Shri Inderjit Lakra. Since the proceedings in the suit had been stayed. The petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear before the trial Court on 11.1.1999 for further proceedings in accordance with law. No costs as the defendant-respondent has not put in appearance in this revision petition.