HEM SINGH Vs. SANJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2010, by which his evidence has been shut. Petitioner is defendant No.2 in the suit, pending before the trial court. His case is that no opportunity, at all, was granted to him to adduce evidence and that on 12.8.2010, when the case was fixed for evidence of defendant No.1, not only the evidence of defendant No.1 was shut, but his evidence was also closed.

(2.) I have gone through the record. Order dated 2.8.2008, copy of which is available on the record, directed production of evidence of defendant No.1. Thereafter it was being adjourned for evidence of defendant No. 1 upto 14.6.2010. Last opportunity was granted on 14.6.2010 for production of DWs and the matter was adjourned to 12.8.2010. On that date, the impugned order was passed. Zimni orders, starting from 2.8.2008 indicate that it was only defendant No.1, for whose evidence the matter was being adjourned upto 12.8.2010. Present petitioner, who is defendant No.2, was never afforded any opportunity to produce his evidence. Therefore, present petition is allowed and it is ordered that before deciding the case finally, trial Court shall afford reasonable opportunity to petitioner-defendant No.2 to adduce his evidence.

(3.) Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.