SMT. BADAMI Vs. BHANWAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Head with the consent of both the parties. The short question is whether the evidence closed by the trial Court after giving defendant some opportunities should be opened or not Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this Court in Civil Revision No. 746/96 decided on 10.11.98 and Civil Revision No. 22/94 decided on 10.11.98 as well as in Civil Revision No. 318/98 decided on 25.8.98 at Jaipur Bench and Civil Revision No. 900/98 decided on 15.9.98 at Jaipur Bench has allowed the party to lead evidence after many opportunities were given by the trial Court and then evidence was shut. According to him the rules of procedure are handmaids to justice and not to hamper it. He has submitted that as a general rule evidence should not be shut-out and fullest opportunities should be given to the parties. For this proposition reliance has been placed on AIR 1969 Punjab & Haryana page 197, Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh & Anr. Vs. Firm Ram Singh Baldev Kishen). In this citation the following observations are material :

(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent relied on 1994(1) WLN page 158, LIC of India Vs. Smt. Jyoti Chhatwani and 1995 DNJ (Raj.) page 380, Dayal Ram Vs. Prabhu Ram and has submitted that no further opportunity can be given to the defendant to lead evidence because he has been very careless. He further submitted that view of this Court in these citations was that evidence once closed should not be reopened.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised before me. There is not doubt that the defendants in the case in hand were careless but for that the plaintiff be compensated by payment of cost. As observed in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh & Anr. Vs. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishen (supra) the general rule is that evidence should not be shut out and fullest opportunity be given to the parties for evidence if the justice of the case requires it. In Civil Revision No. 318/98 decided on 25.8.98 at Jaipur Bench it was observed that conduct of the defendant can be said to be grossly negligent but he should not suffer by not leading evidence. I am of the view that rules of procedure are handmaids to do justice and not to hamper it. Of course the defendant was careless in not producing evidence on seven occasions but this Court in Civil Revision No. 318/98 reopened the evidence though there was lapse on the part of defendant of nineteen opportunities. The opposite party was compensated by cost.