KULWINDER SINGH Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil suit No. 1418 of 2010 has been pending against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 & 4, herein, that has been filed by respondents Nos. 1 & 2, herein. In that suit, six adjournments were granted to the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 & 4 to complete and conclude their evidence, but they remained unsuccessful in doing so, and ultimately on 22.01.2013, their evidence was closed by order. Aggrieved against the same, the present petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 & 4 filed application (Annexure P -2) before the trial Court for recall of the order, but that was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2013 (Annexure P -3).

(2.) AGGRIEVED against both the orders (supra), the petitioner who is defendant No. 1 before the trial Court has filed the present civil revision with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for setting aside of both the orders and for grant of adequate opportunities for leading evidence.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the latter had deposited diet money and process fee for summoning of deed writer as also, an official witness. Even, he contended that there is note in the zimni order dated 07.10.2013, made by the official of the Court, that witness No. 1 i.e. deed writer is out of station and witness No. 2, who is a govt. official has gone for his evidence in another case. He further contended that when the diet money and process fee for summoning of these witnesses had been deposited in the trial Court, then, it was bounden duty of the trial Court to summon these witnesses through the agency of the Court and if after receiving summons, they have not appeared, then, they should have been summoned through warrant of arrest.