- (1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit for possession by way of specific performance of a contract brought on the basis of an agreement to sell suit property executed by the predecessor of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had closed his evidence. On his turn, the defendant had availed six effective opportunities including the last opportunity granted to conclude his evidence on 20th March, 2014. While the defendant was taking time again and again to produce his evidence and was unable to do so, in the meanwhile the plaintiff's application for production of additional evidence was allowed and PW4 was examined on 19th March, 2014 and the evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order and the case adjourned to the next day for defendant's evidence. A copy of the zimni order dated 19th March, 2014 was produced before me on the asking of the court. Since it was not on file the same has been taken on record on oral request of counsel.
(2.) ON 20th March, 2014, DW Suresh Dhawan -Defendant No 1 was present for cross -examination and his testimony could have been recorded but for an adjournment sought by him on the ground that he wants to produce the death certificate of his aunt but was unable to procure it since her son was not in town. This request has been rejected vide order dated 20th March, 2014 and the defendant's evidence stands closed by Court order and the case posted for rebuttal evidence.
(3.) THE defendant is not yet before this Court questioning the correctness of the order closing evidence. The result is that the crossexamination of DW Suresh Dhawan was not recorded. For some odd reason, the plaintiff's counsel moved an application under Section 151 CPC on the same day which came up in the post -lunch session before trial court in which a request was made for allowing the plaintiff to cross -examine DW Suresh Dhawan. The application was posted for consideration on 24th March, 2014 when reply to the application was filed and arguments were heard. The learned trial judge by the impugned order has declined the request of the plaintiff to cross -examine DW Suresh Dhawan for the reason that when opportunity was given to the plaintiff he did not avail it, which day was also the day of last opportunity granted to the defendant to lead his evidence. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak by a quaint order has declined the request for cross -examination of the witness for the reason that he was not cross -examined by the plaintiff at the relevant time and therefore she thought it fit to observe that the application had been filed to delay proceedings in the case and no one should be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. The learned trial judge missed the point that the plaintiff was ready to cross -examine DW but for the adjournment sought by the witness himself. The cross -examination got derailed in this manner and the plaintiff is accused of delaying proceedings and to make matters worse, the evidence of the defendants was closed by order. The learned trial judge appears to have panicked and pressed the Ctrl+Alt+Del buttons on the key board virtually shutting down the case, the application dismissed with costs of Rs.500/ -. The case posted to the next working day for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments thereby tightly squeezing the plaintiff leaving scant time to avail legal remedies against the orders. The events of 20th March, 2014, the fateful day, are now narrated briefly in sequential order.;