RAM LAL Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have assailed order dated 29.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge Court No. II, Nalagarh, which reads as under:-

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the order, vide which, evidence of the petitioners was ordered to be closed is per se perverse because this order was passed by the learned Court below by ignoring the fact that two witnesses were served for the previous date, who did not appear in the Court. A perusal of the record demonstrates that for the previous date, i.e. 25.04.2019, both the witnesses, whom plaintiffs intended to examine, stood served but for some reason, they did not appear before the Court. In these circumstances, as per learned Counsel for the petitioners, no fault can be attributed to the plaintiffs and appropriate course for the Court would have been to fix the case on some other date for the purpose of recording the statements of the said witnesses by ensuring the presence of said witnesses, who were not present in the Court on the said date despite having been served with the Court notice.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 1, on instructions, does not disputes this factual position.