DARSHAN KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. SURJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision petition is to an order dated 7.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, whereby the petitioners' evidence has been closed by order.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that on 1.9.2007, the case was adjourned, as the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 8.11.2007, PW Dharampal and Naib Sadar Kanungo were present but as they did not bring the record, they were bound down for 9.1.2008. On 4.1.2008, the case was taken up and as the Presiding Officer was to go on leave, the case was adjourned. On 13.3.2008, as no witness was present, the case was adjourned to 7.5.2008, on which date, the petitioners' evidence was closed by order. It is submitted that though, the petitioners summoned and produced two official witnesses, their failure to appear, despite being bound to appear before the trial Court, should not penalise the petitioners. These witnesses could not appear, as 7.5.2008 was declared as a holiday by the C.R. No. 3629 of 2008 2 Punjab Government. The witnesses, who are Government employees, were under an erroneous impression that Courts were also closed. It is submitted that in case, one opportunity is granted to the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000.00, to lead their entire evidence, the petitioners would do so without any further delay.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the interim orders and am satisfied that closure of the petitioners' evidence by order has caused serious prejudice. The witnesses produced by the petitioners are official witnesses and though bound to appear before the Court, failed to do so. The petitioners, therefore, cannot be penalised for mistake of the official witnesses.