GIANI Vs. GANGA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short undisputed facts in this revision petition are that a suit for possession by way of pre-emption was brought by the respondents in which evidence of the respondents was closed as far back as in September, 1988, which the case was adjourned for recording of defendants' evidence. Examination-in-chief of one witness of the defendants was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred on account of Court's time being over. Finally the defence evidence was closed by the impugned order dated 7.1.1989 and the case was adjourned to 29.1.1989 for rebuttal evidence arguments.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the procedure adopted is not in conformity with Order 17 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code. When the case was being adjourned, the defendants should have been granted an opportunity to lead their defence evidence and cost was the panacea for any negligence on their part, particularly in view of the fact that one witness was partly examined and his cross-examination was deferred, who was also not present in Court when the impugned order was passed. In support of his contention he relies upon Basant Kaur and another v. Smt. Gurdyalo,1975 77 PunLR 772, Rameshwar Nath v. Ranjit Singh and others, 1988 94 PunLR 407 and Parkash Chander Manchanda and another v. Smt. Janki Manchanda, 1987 AIR(SC) 42.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents refutes the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and contends that in 1988 counsel for the defendants made a statement that one final opportunity be granted to him to lead evidence at his own responsibility and in case the evidence is not produced on that date fixed, their evidence should be deemed to have been closed. It is contended that in view of this statement another opportunity need not have been given but in spite of that two other opportunities were given. The order does not suffer from any infirmity. The evidence has been closed justifiably.