SARJEET KAUR Vs. GURMAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment I propose to dispose of civil revisions No. 329 of 1999 and 333 of 1999 as they arise in somewhat common circumstances and between the same parties.

(2.) The ambit and scope of the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code vesting powers in the Court in relation to closing evidence of the parties and proceeding further with the suit is the basic question that falls for determination in these two revisions. The revision petitions were called out three times but the counsel for the petitioner did not care to appear. The counsel for the respondent was present and as such matter was heard in the absence of counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) It will be appropriate to refer to the basic facts. The plaintiff-petitioner herein had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that decree dated 25.7.1991 passed in civil suit No. 581 of 1991 was illegal, null and void and not binding on the petitioner. The petitioner had also prayed for injunction. The petitioner had claimed half share in the suit land. The present suit was contested by the defendants who stated that the previous decree was passed in accordance with law and the present suit was nothing but a frivolous and vexatious litigation pursued by the petitioner. Upon parties completing their pleadings, the case was fixed for recording evidence of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff failed to lead evidence on different dates, the learned trial Court even thereafter granted number of opportunities and then closed the evidence of the plaintiff vide order dated 14.11.1998, which has been impugned by the plaintiff in the present petitions. Both the revisions have identical facts and orders of the same date.