Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 8 (PNJ)

Darshan Singh v. Mehnga Singh

2000-01-10

V.M.JAIN

body2000
JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - The petitioners have filed the present revision petition in this Court against the order dated 17.8.1999, passed by the trial Court closing the evidence of the defendants by order of the court. 2. Notice of motion was issued. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records. 3. While closing the evidence of the defendants by order of the Court vide order dated August 17, 1999, the trial Court had noticed that no D.W. was present, last opportunity was granted for the remaining evidence to the defendants subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. But inspite of that neither the defendants have produced any evidence nor the costs had been paid. Since there was no justification for further adjournment for that purpose, evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that it was far back as on 7.8.1996 that the plaintiff had closed his evidence and the case was adjourned to 20.9.1996 for defendant evidence and since then several opportunities have been granted to the defendants to produce their evidence. He has also submitted that on various dates summons to the witnesses could not be issued as the process fee was not filed. He has further submitted that on various occasions last opportunity was granted to the defendants to produce their evidence including 3.5.1999, 2.6.1999 and 22.7.1999. He further submitted that on 22.7.1999 while adjourning the case to 17.8.1999 for remaining evidence of the defendants, the learned trial Court had made it clear that this was the last opportunity to the defendants to produce their entire evidence and that this adjournment was subject to payment of Rs. 300/- as costs. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2(4), C.P.C., the Court was empowered to permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. He has further submitted that in view of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A, C.P.C., the Court was competent to permit any party to produce any evidence even at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. 6. After hearing both sides, I find no merit in the present revision petition. He has further submitted that in view of the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17-A, C.P.C., the Court was competent to permit any party to produce any evidence even at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. 6. After hearing both sides, I find no merit in the present revision petition. As referred to above, various opportunities were granted to the defendant-petitioners to produce their evidence, during the last three years including the last opportunities which were granted on 3.5.1999, 2.6.1999 and 22.7.1999. In spite of various opportunities, the defendant-petitioners had failed to produce their remaining evidence. In fact on 22.7.1999, while adjourning the case to 17.8.1999, the learned trial Court had also imposed Rs. 300/- as conditional costs. Even the costs were not paid on the adjourned date. Under these circumstances, the learned trial Court was fully justified in closing the evidence of the defendants by order of the Court. 7. So far as the provisions of Order 18 Rule 2(4) and Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC, are concerned, these have nothing to do so far as the impugned order dated 17.8.1999 passed by the learned trial Court is concerned. Since the defendants had failed to produce their remaining evidence, the trial Judge has closed the remaining evidence of the defendants by Court order. Order 18 Rule 2(4) CPC only permits the Court for reasons to be recorded to direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage. Similarly, under Order 18 Rule 17-A, CPC, the Court is competent to permit any party to produce any evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. However, these provisions would have no application at a stage, when the evidence of the defendants was closed by the Court order. 8. In view of the above, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21.2.2000 for further proceedings. Petition dismissed.