RAM CHAND GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside order dated 15.11.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Panipat vide which evidence of petitioner was closed.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. This Court while issuing notice of motion on 23.11.2010 passed the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 17.9.2010 summons were issued to the official of the Delhi Development Authority to produce relevant documents before the Court. He further states that despite of service on the witness, witness did not appear before the Court, hence, learned trial court vide order dated 27.10.2010 directed to issue bailable warrants against the witness. It is further contended that bailable warrants could not be served because warrants were wrongly set to District Court Patiala House, New Delhi while same ought to have been set to South District, Saket Court, New Delhi. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that for no fault of the petitioner, evidence was directed to be closed vide order dated 15.11.2010. Learned counsel further states that once witness fails to appear in compliance of the summons issued, Court was duty bound to take coercive steps against the witness to ensure his attendance. Notice of motion. Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed. Trial Court is directed to ensure presence of the witness by taking coercive steps and to proceed with the case in accordance with law. List on 21.1.2010"
(3.) IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only witness remains to be examined in this case is official from the office of Deputy Director(OSB), Delhi Development Authority and that he already appeared before learned trial Court and his examination-in-chief was conducted. Record was also brought by him. However, his crossexamination was deferred at the request of learned counsel for the defendants. IT has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that now the case is fixed for 11.03.2011 and on that day he will be examined and petitioner-plaintiff does not want to examine any other witness. These facts have not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents-defendants.;