DAYAL RAM Vs. PRABHU RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Munsif, Deedwana dated December 20, 1993 by which the evidence of the defendant-Petitioner has been closed. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) In the year 1986 the plaintiff non-Petitioners filed a suit for cancellation of a document and injunction. On March 16, 1993, the plaintiffs closed their evidence and April 14, 1993 was fixed for defendant's evidence. till August 23, 1993, the defendant examined 7 witnesses. Therefore, he was granted adjournments on several dates of payment of costs to produce his meaning witnesses. On his failure to do so, his evidence was closed by the impugned order dated December 20, 1993.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant Petitioner that the suit was filed in the year 1986, the plaintiffs themselves took innumerable adjournments to produce their witnesses, they closed their evidence as late as on March 16, 1993 after about 7 years and the learned trial Court was not at all justified to close the defendant's evidence on December 20. 1993. He further contended that during the period from March 16, 1993 to December 20, 1993 the case was adjourned at the instance of the plaintiffs, due to the strike of the lawyers, non receipt of the record, for the disposal of the applications and on account of absence of material witness i.e. Tehsildar, Deedwana. He lastly contended that the defendant was not given sufficient opportunity to produce his evidence.