Ram Chand Gupta, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 3.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, Annexure P1, vide which evidence of Petitioner -Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit was closed.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that a suit was filed against present Petitioners as Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Omaxe Construction Ltd, Defendant No. 3, by Smt. Nirmla for specific performance and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction. After evidence of Plaintiff was closed, case was fixed for evidence of Defendants, as is clear from the various orders passed by learned trial Court, some of which has been reproduced by the Petitioners in the present petition. Sufficient opportunities were granted to Defendants to lead their evidence. After availing 3 -4 opportunities for evidence, an application was moved on behalf of Petitioner -Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for summoning some witnesses and on the said application order was passed by learned trial Court on 14.8.2010 that official witnesses be summoned. However, no official witnesses could be summoned, as diet money was not deposited by Petitioner -Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
(3.) REPORT was called from learned trial court in this regard. Report has been received from trial Court, wherein it has been mentioned that expenses for summoning the witnesses by Defendant were not deposited. Hence, summons could not be issued. There is no force in the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there was lapse on the part of learned trial Court for not issuing summons to the witnesses. Rather a wrong plea has been taken on behalf of Petitioner -Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that summons were not issued despite deposit of requisite expenses. After filing of application for summoning of the witnesses on 14.8.2010, the case was adjourned to 4.9.2010 for evidence, when no witness was present. Last opportunity was granted by learned trial Court for 25.9.2010, on which date as well no witness of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were present. Again Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were given an opportunity to deposit the process fee and diet money etc. for summoning witnesses and the case was adjourned to 3.11.2010, making it another last opportunity. However, despite that neither the expenses were deposited nor any witnesses was present and hence, learned trial Court was constrained to pass the following order, dated 3.11.2010: Today the case was fixed for Defendant's evidence on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. But Defendants No. 1 and 2 failed to conclude Defendant's evidence. Defendants No. 1 and 2 requested one more adjournment for Defendants evidence. Perusal of case file reveals that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 availed sufficient opportunity to conclude Defendant's evidence. Hence, request of Defendants No. 1 and 2 is declined and Defendant's evidence of Defendant No. 1 and 2 is closed by court order. Let case is adjourned to 3.12.2010 for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.;