NANA LAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) ON September 15, 1986 the defendant No. 2 was allowed to adduce evidence and the case was fixed for December 17, 1986. On that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to January 31, 1987. On this date the counsel for the defendant No. 2 sought an adjournment which was granted as the counsel for the plaintiffs had no objection to it. On February 28, 1987, Ganpatlal witness was present. For this date, the defendant had summoned three witnesses, namely, Geru, Ganpatlal and Sardar Singh. Sardar Singh was served personally, while Geru was not served as he was not found in village Gadri and had gone out of the village. On this date the counsel for the plaintiff sought an adjournment on the ground that there was some marriage in his family. Ganpatlal was bound for the next date and the case was adjourned to March 28, 1987. On this date Ganpatlal did not appear. It appears that an application had been sent by Ganpatlal to the Court showing his inability to appear on that date. The District Judge, Bhilwara, adjourned the case to May 2, 1987 subject to payment of Rs. 200/ - as costs. It was further mentioned in the order that only Ganpatlal would be examined and no other witness would be examined. The next date fixed was May 2, 1987. On this date the counsel for the defendant No. 2 wanted time for adducing evidence. The District Judge stated that the case had become old and the defendant No. 2 had not summoned the witness. He, therefore, closed the evidence of defendant No. 2 and adjourned the case for evidence of defendant Mo. 1. The defendant No. 1 closed his evidence after examining his witness on May 23, 1987. The case was then adjourned to July 21. 1987 for recording of evidence of defendants Nos. 3 to 7. Evidence of defendants Nos. 3 to 7 was closed on that date and the case was adjourned to August 20, 1987 for final arguments. On this date the counsel for defendant No. 2 was not present and the case was fixed for September 19.1987 for final arguments. The defendant No. 2 has challenged the order dated May 2, 1987 whereby his evidence was closed. It is clear from the proceedings dated February 28, 1987 that Ganpat Lal witness of defendant No. 2 was present on that date, but adjournment was sought on behalf of the plaintiff on account of marriage in his family. Ganpatlal was bound to appear on the next date. However, Ganpatlal did not appear and he sent an application for adjournment. So far as other two witnesses Sardar Singh and Geru were concerned, the former had remained absent despite service of summons and the latter was not served. The District Judge did not pass any order regarding issuing of bailable warrant against Sardar Singh who had not appeared despite service. He also did not pass any order relating to Geru who was not served. Ganpatlal had been bound by the Court to appear on March 28, 1987. In such circumstances, the District Judge should have ordered for the issue of bailable warrants against Ganpatlal and Sardar Singh and fresh summons at correct address on Geru. Instead of that the District Judge ordered that now only Ganpatlal. would be examined and granted an adjournment for examination of Ganpatlal the proper order that the District Judge should have passed was to issue bailable warrants against Ganpatlal and Sardar Singh and fresh summons against Geru on correct address. The order closing the evidence of defendant No. 2 is, therefore, not proper.