HANSRAJ Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition,, which is second in succession, has a somewhat painful history behind which may be briefly narrated as follows : -

(2.) A suit for ejectment filed by the respondent herein against the petitioner is pending in the court of Sub Judge, Jammu. On 23 -2 -76 no one was present on behalf of the respondent when the suit was called. The same was dismissed for non -appearance of the plaintiff by the court. The plaintiff through his counsel however made an application for restoration of the same on the very same day i. e. 23 -2 -76, alleging therein that the clerk of the plaintiffs counsel was waiting outside the court room for the case being called, failed to hear any such call and therefore, enquired from the concerned clerk as to what had happened to the case. He was told that the file was lying with the Presiding Officer himself but later on he came to know that the suit had been dismissed for default in appearance by the plaintiff. The court on this application issued a notice to the counsel for the petitioner herein called upon him to appear before the court on 25 -2 -1976 the Counsel for the petitioner reported no instructions and prayed that a notice be sent to the petitioner himself. The court obliged the counsel for the petitioner and directed that a fresh notice be -sent to the petitioner himself to appear before the court on 27th Feb: 1976. In obedience to this notice, the petitioner appeared before the court and was given time till 5th March, 1976 to file his objections to the respondent application moved by the respondent on 23 -2 -76. on 5th March, 1976 again neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared. The court passed an order granting the (sic) respondents application for restoration of the suit and fixed March 12, 1976 as the date in the suit itself. As appears from the interim order passed by the court on 5th of March, 1976, this order was also announced in the court. It was at this juncture that counsel for the petitioner appeared. Another opportunity was granted to him to file objections to the respondent application dated 23 -2 -1976 and the next date for the purpose was fixed on 8th March, 1976. On this date the petitioner again came with a plea that as no copy of the application dated 23 -2 -76 was supplied to him by the respondent he was unable to file his objections on the said date. A copy of the application was, therefore, there and then supplied to the counsel for the petitioner and he was directed to file his objections on 10th March, 1976.

(3.) THE petitioner filed his objections on 10th, March. 1976. and the court directed the respondent to produce evidence in support of his application on 12th March, 1976. The respondent besides appearing as is own witness examined one S. Harbajan Singh, a clerk of his counsel and closed his evidence. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to produce his evidence in rebuttal on 20th March, 1976. In the meantime i. e. on 16th March, 1976 the petitioner submitted a list of his witnesses, numbering ten and deposited their diet money etc. under order from the court passed on the same day i. e. 16th March, 1976. One of these witnesses belonged lo Udhampur, one to Rajouri and one to Poonch. As the list had been perhaps furnished a little late, the court did not pass any order for issuing process to the witnesses but only directed the Nazir of the court to deposit the expenses for the witnesses under rules. No summons was, therefore, issued to the petitioners witnesses for 20th March, 1976. When the application came up for necessary orders to be passed on it on 20th March, 1976, the respondent made an application stating therein that the extra -ordinary number of witnesses belonging to different parts of Jammu Province had been raised by the petitioner only to temporize the disposal of the restoration application and that the petitioner be directed to take Dasti summons and affect service on his witnesses on his own. The petitioners counsel again sought an opportunity to file his objections to this application as well. Once again time was granted to him and the case was fixed for his objections for 1st April, 1976.