SWATANTER KUMAR,J - (1.) CHALLENGE in this revision is to the order dated 11.10.1999. Vide this order the learned trial Court ordered the evidence of the defendants to be closed because they had failed to produce evidence despite grant of last opportunity.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned counsel appearing for the defendants in the suit was negligent and despite the fact that defendants were present in Court they were not examined. This fact was disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. Be that as it may, the order closing the evidence of a party is an order of serious consequences as the party is ousted from leading its evidence in Court. It is a known fact that there are certain witnesses which have to be produced through the process of the Court. The summoning party may not be able to exercise control over the said witnesses. There appears to be negligence on the part of the defendants but certainly it is not of such nature that it should result in debarring the defendants to lead evidence in Court. The order closing the evidence should give some reasons as it adversely affects the interests of the party in the suit. Further, the Court should normally pass the order of lesser gravity before passing the order of the present kind. At this stage, it may be appropriate to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. Smt. Manjit Kaur, 2000(2) RCR(Civil) 382 (P&H) : C.R. No. 5885, decided on 14.1.1999, where the Court held as under : "The inevitable principle that emerges from the aforesaid established principle of law is that the court must take recourse to the powers vested in the court under the codified law at the appropriate stage and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of that case. It is true that it will not be possible to formulate a strait-jacket formula but passing of adverse orders against a party in the event of default at some stage, at least would be but necessary. In other words, the court must take recourse to such powers as they are essential for achieving the ends of justice. Expeditious disposal of the suit is the very foundation of the amplified procedure prescribed in the Code for conclusion of the suit. May be, a reasonable approach in this regard would, in any case, be highly appreciable. Even applying this concept of reasonableness in exercise of judicial powers would be fully satisfied in the present case. The said purpose is fully achieved in the present case. The court granted opportunities to the plaintiffs to lead evidence, then granted last opportunity and then finally imposed costs for adjourning the case to a date when finally evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Counsel was put at notice and so was the party i.e. the plaintiffs were also cautioned by the Court by imposition of costs and that any further default is bound to result in an adverse orders against the plaintiffs. Persistent default on the part of the plaintiff inspite of such cautions and fair approach adopted by the learned trial court left the learned trial court with no option but to pass the impugned order. I would, willingly predicate the approach adopted by the learned trial court in this case as then alone it is possible to ameliorate ways and means for expeditious disposal of the suit within the provisions of the Code and prevent prescribed procedure being rendered disfunctional." For the reasons aforestated, the order dated 11.10.1999 is set aside. The petitioners (defendants in the suit) shall be entitled to one final opportunity to conclude their evidence before the trial Court on the date to be fixed by the Court. The petitioners shall summons the witnesses through the process of the Court, but their production before the Court would be at the risk and responsibility of the petitioners. Under no circumstances the petitioners would be entitled to any further adjournment except for paucity of time with the Court.
(3.) THE petition is, thus, allowed subject to payment of Rs. 2,500/- as costs, costs being conditional. Petition allowed.;