GURMIT KAUR Vs. HARINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against an interim order of the learned trial Court dated 26th of September, 1978, by which it has declined the prayer of the defendant to examine two witnesses living in England on commission.

(2.) To appreciate the case, a few facts will be necessary to be stated. One Uggar Singh a resident of District Jullundur, had some property in India and at the time of leaving India he left a daughter Harminder Kaur, his wife having already died. After going to England he died on 6th of October 1976. On coming to know of his death, the agricultural land taur and building etc., whatever were owned by Uggar Singh deceased, came in possession of his daughter Harminder Kaur as owner. Later on, some claim was made by one Gurmit Kaur as widow of Uggar Singh and on the basis of a Will and in that respect some letters were received by Harminder Kaur from the attorney of Gurmit Kaur who was also in England, disputing the claim of Harminder Kaur and stating that for the property left in India by Uggar Singh. Gurmit Kaur was the heir under the Will. To dispute the claim of Gurmit Kaur as widow and on the basis of the Will, Harminder Kaur filed a suit for declaration on 8th of January, 1977, against Gurmit Kaur claiming that she was in possession as owner of the property on the death of her father Uggar Singh and disputed the factum and validity of the marriage of her father with Gurmit Kaur and also disputed the alleged will set up by Gurmit Kaur as a bogus document.

(3.) The defence of Gurmit Kaur was that she was the legally wedded wife of Uggar Singh and that a valid Will had been left in her favour by Uggar Singh. On the issues framed by the trial Court, the plaintiff closed her evidence on 7th of January, 1978, and the defendant was given 23rd of March, 1978, as the first date for production of her evidence. In spite of the fact that the defendant had clear two months and 16 days' time to take the necessary steps for production of her evidence, to say the least, even process-fee and diet money was not deposited by her. Fortunately for her, 23rd of March, 1978, was declared a holiday and the case was put up for formal order on 27th of March, 1978. On that date, the trial Court gave another opportunity to the defendant for her evidence and adjourned the case to 26th of May, 1978, giving her two months' time. In spite of another opportunity and a long adjournment, nothing was done by the defendant and again even the process-fee and diet money was not deposited. When the case was taken up on 26th May, 1978, the trial Court passed the following order :-