STATE OF HP Vs. RAM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2009 whereby the evidence of the petitioner State has been closed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) filed a suit before the learned trial Court. Issues in the suit were framed on 6.8.2009 and matter was listed for evidence of the plaintiff for 25.8.2009. The evidence of the plaintiff was examined on the same date and on the very same date the learned Civil Judge directed the State to produce DWs on self responsibility and directed that Dasti summons be issued on usual terms. On 17.09.2009 one DW was present and examined. No other DWs were present and thereafter one date was Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. given and it was directed that on self responsibility remaining DWs be summoned for 27.10.2009. On that date no witness was present and the evidence of the defendants was closed and the case listed for arguments.

(3.) I find it surprising that on 25.8.2009 when the evidence of the plaintiff was examined and matter fixed for 17.09.2009, on the first date itself the learned Civil Judge directed the State to bring evidence on its own responsibility. On the first date it is not expected that such an order is passed. Any party whether it be the State or any other litigant has a right to get his or her witnesses summoned through the process of the Court. It is only when a party is employing dilatory tactics then the Court can direct that party to bring its witnesses on its own responsibility. I also find that on the second date itself the evidence was closed.