JUDGMENT Mr. S.P. Bangarh, J. (Oral):- Petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 594 of 28.07.2009 before the trial Court against the respondents for recovery of possession of the suit premises more fully described in the cause title of the plaint and for recovery of Rs. 65,068/- on account of arrears of rent / mesne profit for the period from 01.06.2007 to 30.06.2009 alongwith interest uptill latter date. 2. The respondents withstood the suit by filing written statement, thereto, controverting, therein, the averments contained in the plaint. On pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 26.04.2010. The suit was adjourned for evidence of the petitioners. Numerous adjournments were granted to the petitioner to complete and conclude the evidence but he remained unsuccessful in doing so albeit last adjournment granted for the purpose subject to cost on certain dates. 3. Though, the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner at his own responsibility, yet, it is made out from the zimni order dated 19.01.2013 that summons issued to PW / Clerk concerned of respondent no.1 received back duly served. But, he (PW / Clerk) had not come present. His name was identified as Dayanand and he was ordered to be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court suffered a statement that he wants to examine only the summoned witness supra and tendered Rs.300/- as costs to the respondent. On 19.01.2013, the following order was passed:- “Present Sh.Rajpal, Advocate for the plaintiff. Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. Summons issued to PW Clerk concerned of MC Naraingarh received back duly served. But he has not come present. Now, Clerk concerned namely Dayanand be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Learned counsel for the plaintiff suffered statement that he wants to examine the summoned witness only and tendered amount of Rs.300/- as costs to defendants. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendants also suffered statement that he has received an amount of Rs.300/- as costs. Statement to the effect recorded separately. Heard. Now, case is adjourned to 22.02.2013 for evidence of plaintiff at own responsibility. It shall be the last opportunity to conclude its evidence. Sd/- (Amit Sharma) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 19.01.2013 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the defendants also suffered statement that he has received an amount of Rs.300/- as costs. Statement to the effect recorded separately. Heard. Now, case is adjourned to 22.02.2013 for evidence of plaintiff at own responsibility. It shall be the last opportunity to conclude its evidence. Sd/- (Amit Sharma) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 19.01.2013 5. On 22.02.2013, the following order was passed:- “Present: Sh.Rajpal, Advocate for the plaintiff. Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh appeared and suffered statement that he has not brought the relevant record and sought date for searching record. Statement to that effect recorded separately. Heard. Now, case is adjourned to 22.03.2013 for evidence of plaintiff at own responsibility. Witness present in the Court discharged for today and bound down for next date of hearing. It shall be the last opportunity to conclude its evidence. Sd/- (Amit Sharma) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh 22.02.2013 6. On 22.03.2013, the following order was passed: “Present Mr. Rajpal, Advocate for the plaintiff. Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. No evidence of plaintiff is present. Witness-Deepak Building Inspector, M.C Naraingarh was bound down for today but he has not come present in the Court today. Now, he be summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.2,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Now, to come upon 26.04.2013 for evidence of plaintiff at own responsibility. It shall be the last opportunity to conclude its evidence. Sd/- (Amit Sharma) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 22.03.2013 7. On 26.04.2013, the following order was passed:- “Present Mr. Rajpal, Advocate for the plaintiff. Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. No evidence of plaintiff is present. Bailable warrant issued to witness Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh received back served and a request letter for another date on behalf of PW Deepak received. Now to come upon 24.05.2013 for plaintiff evidence at his own responsibility. Fresh bailable warrant against the PW Deepak Building Inspector MC, Naraingarh be issued for the date fixed. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 26.04.2013 8. On 23.05.2013, the following order was passed:- “Present: None File taken up today as I was on casual leave on 24.05.2013 and 25.05.2013. Therefore, case stands adjourned to 4/7/2013 for the purpose already fixed. Parties/counsel/witnesses be informed accordingly. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 23.05.2013 9. On 04.07.2013, the following order was passed: “Present Sh.Rajpal, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. Therefore, case stands adjourned to 4/7/2013 for the purpose already fixed. Parties/counsel/witnesses be informed accordingly. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 23.05.2013 9. On 04.07.2013, the following order was passed: “Present Sh.Rajpal, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh appeared and stated that he could not trace the record. He was directed to produce the requisite record positively by tomorrow. Now, to come upon 05.07.2013 for producing the record by PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh, however, it shall be the last opportunity for evidence of plaintiff. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 04.07.2013 10. On 05.07.2013, the following order was passed:- “Present Sh.Rajpal, counsel for the plaintiff. Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. Today the case was fixed for producing the record by PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh. PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh is absent without any intimation in the Court. On the last date of hearing PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh is directed to produce the record, but he is absent today. Now, bailable warrant against the PW Deepak Building Inspector MC Naraingarh be issued for 10.07.2013. Also produce the requisite record. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh Dated 05.07.2013 11. On 10.07.2013, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by passing following order:- “Present: Sh.Rajpal Chaudhary, counsel for the plaintiff Sh.Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate for the defendants. Today witness Deepak Kumar Building Inspector has surrendered in the Court and moved an application for bail. Copy of bail application given. Reply not filed. Arguments heard. Perusal of record shows that non bailable warrant of witness Deepak Kumar, Building Inspector were issued on 5.7.2013 and witness himself surrendered in the Court today itself. It shows that absence of witness was not intentional but due to the reasons mentioned in the application. No useful purpose will be served by detaining the witness in custody. Trial will take long time. So without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to give concession of bail to witness Deepak Kumar Building Inspector. As such witness is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds furnished, attested and accepted. Witness Deepak Kumar Building Inspector be released forthwith. As such witness is admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Requisite bonds furnished, attested and accepted. Witness Deepak Kumar Building Inspector be released forthwith. PW Deepak Kumar Building Inspector is present and suffered statement that summoned record is not traceable in the MC. Statement to this effect recorded separately. An adjournment is requested by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, which is opposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Today was the last opportunity. Plaintiff has availed as many as eleven effective opportunities including one last opportunity for his evidence, but plaintiff has failed to conclude his plaintiff evidence. Therefore, there is no justification to adjourn the case for evidence of plaintiff. Finding no option, evidence of plaintiff is closed by Court order. Now, to come upon 02.08.2013 for defendant evidence at his own responsibility. Sd/- (Rekha) CJ(JD)/Naraingarh dated 10.07.2013 12. Aggrieved against the order dated 10.07.2013 supra, the petitioner, who is plaintiff before the trial Court, has come up with this revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for setting aside the same (impugned order). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that he deposited diet money and process fee for summoning of Building Inspector Deepak Kumar who, albeit, repeated issuance of warrants did not cause appearance and ultimately, he surrendered in the Court on 10.07.2013 and he was allowed bail. 14. This witness Deepak Kumar Building Inspector suffered statement that the summoned record is not traceable in the Municipal Committee, that was recorded. An adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents and ultimately the evidence was closed by the Court order. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only PW Deepak Kumar Building Inspector is to be examined, as the Municipal record has been traced. That was to be got produced from this witness and copy of that record has been placed as Annexures P5 and P6. These Annexures have been sought to be placed on the record of the Civil Revision by filing CM No.22989-CII of 2013 for placing on record the aforementioned documents. These are allowed to be placed on record, subject to all just exceptions and CM stands disposed of. CM No. 22988-CII of 2013 has been filed for taking up the case. These Annexures have been sought to be placed on the record of the Civil Revision by filing CM No.22989-CII of 2013 for placing on record the aforementioned documents. These are allowed to be placed on record, subject to all just exceptions and CM stands disposed of. CM No. 22988-CII of 2013 has been filed for taking up the case. Since, this case has been taken up, this CM stands disposed of. 16. Facts and circumstances of the case suggest that notice of this petition need not be served upon the respondents, who if felt aggrieved by this order, may approach this Court by filing appropriate petition in this regard for setting aside of this order. Indeed, the issuance of notice shall further delay the disposal the case. 17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that latter shall conclude and complete his evidence on the next date of hearing by examining Deepak Kumar Building Inspector and he will be produced by the petitioner by taking dasti summons from the trial Court in this regard. 18. The impugned order, therefore, has to be set aside, as it was not the fault of the petitioner who genuinely summoned that witness of the Municipal Committee. But the record summoned through that witness was not traceable. Indeed, on the date when the evidence of the petitioner was fixed, direction should have been given to Deepak Kumar, Building Inspector of respondent no.1 to trace the summoned record and for that purpose, at least one adjournment should have been granted by the trial Court, as the petitioner was not negligent in any manner. Anyhow, the record has been traced. Annexures P5 and P6 of the summoned record have been placed on the record of the present revision petition. The learned trial Court shall now permit the petitioner to examine PW Deepak Kumar Building Inspector of respondent no.1 and summons be issued to him and dasti summons be also given to the petitioner for production of this witness in the Court on the date fixed in the trial Court i.e 12.12.2013. 19. The learned trial Court shall now permit the petitioner to examine PW Deepak Kumar Building Inspector of respondent no.1 and summons be issued to him and dasti summons be also given to the petitioner for production of this witness in the Court on the date fixed in the trial Court i.e 12.12.2013. 19. Resultantly, the civil revision succeeds and is, hereby, allowed with no order as to costs; impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to examine Deepak Kumar Building Inspector on the next date of hearing fixed in the suit and he will obtain dasti summons for effecting service upon Deepak Kumar Building Inspector and the trial Court shall also issue summons to this witness through the agency of the Court for the next date fixed in the suit. ---------0.B.S.0------------