Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 210 (PNJ)

State Of Punjab v. Ajmer Singh

2009-01-27

K.KANNAN

body2009
Judgment K.Kannan, J. 1. The issues of closure of evidence of one party by the court and the affected party who wishes to place further evidence remaining dissatisfied have become a recurring theme, which requires to be addressed by a more detailed order so as to contain some guidelines to be followed before the Court turns down a request for further evidence. 2. This order is passed at the stage of admission itself without serving a notice on respondent under the extraordinary circumstance that the other party has not joined issues on the point raised by the party seeking for permission for adducing further evidence but it is the order of the Court that comes in the way for tendering his evidence. This procedure is again adopted under the extraordinary circumstances keeping in view the continuity of trial without having to lose time by serving notice of the application to the respondent. 3. The matter of examination of witnesses, shall normally be left to the prerogative of the parties to decide and it shall be the parties who shall decide on the quality of evidence that they want to lead. The Court shall place no fetters on the choice of witnesses, except when the evidence is totally irrelevant. Managing the case on board on any day is the Presiding Officers own duty and he/she has a right to regulate the same by posting appropriate number of cases that could fit into his/her board for disposal. Needless to state that the Presiding Officer shall always bear in mind the conduct of the parties and if he or she finds that repeated adjournments are sought only to hamper the normal course of trial and delay the proceeding, the Court will be well within its power to thwart such attempt. 4. There are several ways by which the Court will be able to rein in the party that adopts questionable practices for prolonging the trial. Imposition of costs is one such way by which the Court can effectively compensate the party, who is put to difficulties by the unjust conduct of his adversary. Posting the case to consecutive dates on a day-to-day basis may be yet another procedure that Court can think of applying to ensure a speedy disposal and set itself a time frame before when the trial of any one case could be concluded. Posting the case to consecutive dates on a day-to-day basis may be yet another procedure that Court can think of applying to ensure a speedy disposal and set itself a time frame before when the trial of any one case could be concluded. Obtaining list of witnesses from the parties and eliciting views of the counsel for the time that if likely to be consumed may also provide an important input for managing the board. 5. Time management has been a new mantra in the management jargon and in several of the workshops, it is discussed at length where the Presiding Officers are guided as to how they shall effectively control the board and prevent waste of time. The Court refusing an adjournment on its observation that one party has taken several adjournments are probably in instances where the Court finds that there is no scope for exercising the discretion in favour of the party seeking for an adjournment for production of witnesses. If it is only a matter of discretion and guided by sound judicial principles there ought not to be any ground for intervention in revision. It is only because such type of the orders in revision that I have thought it necessary to put the specific instances on how the matter has disposed of and how parties are needlessly coming to this Court only to secure an order for reopening the case and adducing some more evidence. 5. Even if an order is passed directing the closure of evidence, it can never be said to be irretrievably sealed for all purposes. Instances may arise, when the party shows reason for his inability to give evidence and the Court on a proper consideration of facts could reopen the case which is closed. This power to reopen is an inherent power with the Court shall exercise under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. 6. In the cases at hand in C.R. No. 404 of 2009, it is of a party-defendant, to whom the Presiding Officer had granted time for giving evidence on 14.09.2007, 22.11.2007, 12.02.2008, 04.04.2008, 28.05.2008 and finally for 11.06.2008. The Court had closed the evidence and directed the matter to come for arguments on 13.6.2008. 6. In the cases at hand in C.R. No. 404 of 2009, it is of a party-defendant, to whom the Presiding Officer had granted time for giving evidence on 14.09.2007, 22.11.2007, 12.02.2008, 04.04.2008, 28.05.2008 and finally for 11.06.2008. The Court had closed the evidence and directed the matter to come for arguments on 13.6.2008. At this stage, an application had been filed to review the order which was in the nature of reopening the evidence, giving out the reason that the official witness had been busy in a meeting with the Deputy Commissioner and as soon as he realized that the evidence had been closed, he filed an application to review its order. The learned Judge has passed the impugned order on 25.9.2008 by observing that the Court cannot review its own order and the only remedy available was to go in revision against the order dated 11.06.2008. If only the Court had seen the reasons adduced for non-appearance and passed an order on the same, it would not have made the mistake of saying that it had no power to review, for after all, it was not a judicial order on merits relating to the case. It was purely a docket order of adjourning a particular case after directing the evidence to be closed. The purpose of the trial is to secure the relevant materials for an adjudication. There could be no valid adjudication in the absence of a fair opportunity to a party. If the party had not valid reasons, it had other ways of compensating for the time lost to the opposite party or if the Courts own time has been wasted, it could again direct imposition of costs even to the service institutions attached to the Court like Legal Services Authority or the Mediation Centre. The rejection of the request for reopening the case for adducing evidence in my view was totally unjustified under the circumstances. 7. Again in C.R. No. 414 of 2009, we have a similar situation of finding where the party had come to Court with an application to give an opportunity to examine a witness where it had posted the case for evidence of the defendants on 3.2.2009. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff had already examined three witnesses. The plaintiff sought for time for examining himself after completion of the evidence of PW-3 on 14.12.2008. In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff had already examined three witnesses. The plaintiff sought for time for examining himself after completion of the evidence of PW-3 on 14.12.2008. The personal absence of the plaintiff in Court on 14.12.2008 was explained by him with the statement accompanying Doctors certificate that he was suffering from a viral skin infection of herpes and hence he could not come to Court. It was clear from the statement of the counsel for the revision petitioner that between 16.4.2008 to 4.12.2008 there were three hearing dates and the plaintiff was seeking time after the examination of witnesses for his own evidence. In a suit for Specific Performance where the plaintiff had to prove his readiness and willingness, the crucial nature of such evidence could not be under- estimated. Probably, he required reasons to come for examination out of turn under Order 18 Rule 3A of the CPC but it was an issue of procedure which Court would have taken into consideration whether to accommodate the request or not. Directing closure of the evidence of one party and directing the respondent to begin his case even when the plaintiff was still making a plea for grant of an opportunity seems unreasonable. The evidence was not, therefore, liable for closure only for non-appearance of the party on a particular date or when reasons were given by a party for non-appearance. 8. The above directions are given even at the stage of admission only to ensure that fair opportunities are always given to the parties for examination of witnesses and the errant conduct of parties are to be dealt with suitably in other means outlined above. Closure of evidence and directing arguments or refusing to reopen a case that was directed as closed seldom accord with fair procedure and justice. 9. The revisions petitions are allowed and the parties shall be at liberty to adduce fresh evidence/further evidence on the date to be fixed by the Court in the respective cases. Petitions allowed.