- (1.)Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection to the recalling of the order dated 20.12.1999. Ordered accordingly. Both the counsel state that the matter may be taken up for hearing today. Accordingly the matter is taken up for hearing today. C.M. stands disposed of.
(2.)This is a revision directed against the order dated 9.8.1999 vide which the trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner but at the same time passed an order that if the defendant brings his evidence on the next date, it shall be accepted failing which the order was to become absolute. When the order is passed under Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C. against a party there is no question of granting opportunity to the same party to produce evidence. This order is contrary to the provisions of law. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown that service was effected on Yash Pal and Des Raj witnesses. The trial court has ignored this fact and closed the evidence by order having recourse to the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 C.P.C.
(3.)This order in the eyes of law cannot be sustained and shows utter carelessness on the part of the learned Sub Judge who did not care to go through the report of the Process Server on the summons. The comments of the learned Sub Judge were called which are not satisfactory. In view of the above this order cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. Learned counsel for the respondent requests that this case is pending for the long time as the matter relates to the election of the society and needs to be disposed of at the earliest. Keeping in view the nature of the case, it is desirable that the learned Sub Judge shall proceed with the case in such a manner so as to decide it within three months.