DEV VRATH BHANU Vs. GANESH DASS AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioner has called in question the order of learned City Judge, Jammu dated 08.05.2012, whereby the right of the petitioner to produce evidence has been closed.

(2.) Before appreciating the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner to assail impugned order, it would be appropriate to take note of facts briefly.

(3.) A civil suit filed by the respondents against the petitioner with regard to land measuring 1 kanal falling in Khasra No. 104 situated at Rajpura Magotrian is pending adjudication in the Court of City Judge, Jammu. The respondents, who are plaintiffs in the suit have already led their evidence and the petitioner-defendant in the suit though was afforded several opportunities to produce the evidence, yet could not produce the same. As noted by the trial Court in the order impugned that during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 2 has died and no application has been made to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased-defendant. It is in these circumstances and on account of failure of the petitioner to produce the evidence, despite availing several opportunities even after the last opportunity to produce the witnesses, the trial Court vide order impugned, closed the evidence of the defendant. It is, however, noteworthy that in the order impugned, instead of the defendant whose right to produce the evidence was intended to be closed by the trial Court, the trial Court indicated that the right to produce evidence of the plaintiff is closed. In this brief factual background, the learned Senior Counsel assailed the order impugned inter-alia on the following grounds:-